Monday, August 6, 2012
Low Income earners Burnt As Cost Of Solar Subsidy Spirals
RENTERS, pensioners and other low-income earners are paying for their wealthier neighbours to enjoy cheaper power under the state's skyrocketing solar subsidy system.
The Queensland Consumers Association says costs to subsidise solar are forecast to triple, as the state's bill to fund the scheme continues to grow.
More than 100,000 applications were received last month from homeowners wanting to profit from the state's generous 44c per kilowatt hour tariff - twice the retail power rate - which will continue for 16 years.
By installing solar systems up to 5kW, the mostly well-heeled applicants stand to earn $200-$300 a quarter from a subsidy that is costing their non-solar neighbours more each year.
One of those who applied was Algester resident Ron Ruys, who feels badly for his neighbours who are indirectly helping to pay for a $10,000 5kW system that will earn him extra income.
"I'm going to do it and I'm going to make money out of it," he said. "But it is unfair to other people because of the subsidy. I don't think people know what the 44c means to their bill."
Energy Minister Mark McArdle has estimated the tariff would cost $1.8 billion by 2028 if the scheme remained unchanged. The July 9 deadline limiting future payments at an 8c cent rate.
The Government projects that the annual cost of the subsidy will rise from $50 to $100 for each household from the surge in applications, and another $50 for upgrades to the power grid.
Whether the increases will become a reality depends on whether the Government is successful in cutting expenses elsewhere in the budgets of power suppliers, including "community services".
Queensland Consumers Association vice-president Ian Jarratt said the threat of a $100 annual hike should be a concern for many people trying to stretch their income.
"A dollar is always more for a pensioner," he said.
The association said it voiced concerns about the scheme's cost several years ago to state officials. "Things had been done far too quickly and not thought through enough, especially about the cost to consumers who could not afford to install solar systems," Mr Jarratt said.
The solar scheme has had some benefits: creating employment for thousands of installers, reducing the state's dependence on coal and lowering carbon emissions.
Prices of home solar systems have dropped 50 per cent.
Installer numbers have increased from 78 in 2008 to more than 1100 today. The number of customers has increased from 1200 to around 180,000.
On the downside, "all Queensland households and small businesses indirectly foot the bill", Mr McArdle said.
The Government said it was obliged by legislation to continue the 44c tariff for the next 16 years, and risked lawsuits if it reneged.
solar, solar australia
australia solar energy,
command economy australia,
economics theory,
energy australia,
government subsidies,
solar,
solar subsidies,
solar subsidy news
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Solar Panel Firms ‘Mislead' Over Carbon
Two solar panel companies have been found to have made misleading comments about the impact of the carbon tax on electricity prices.
POLARIS Solar and ACT Renewable Energy said in leaflets distributed in Western Australia and the ACT in late 2011 and early 2012 that customers should buy solar panels because electricity prices would increase by 20 per cent due to the carbon price.
The brochures also claimed the cost of power would rise by more than 400 per cent by 2019.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found the information was "clearly misleading".
While the brochures said the figures were based on independent studies, they were in fact based on unverified claims in an energy industry association ad.
"There was no reasonable basis for these claims to be made," ACCC acting chairman Michael Schaper said in a statement.
Polaris Solar and ACT Renewable Energy gave an undertaking on Tuesday not to engage in similar conduct in the future and ensure all directors are trained in consumer law.
Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury said it was an important reminder to businesses they could not make false claims about the carbon price.
"This also underscores the fact that the reckless and negative scare campaign run by Tony Abbott and vested interests is putting businesses at risk of breaking the law," Mr Bradbury said.
POLARIS Solar and ACT Renewable Energy said in leaflets distributed in Western Australia and the ACT in late 2011 and early 2012 that customers should buy solar panels because electricity prices would increase by 20 per cent due to the carbon price.
The brochures also claimed the cost of power would rise by more than 400 per cent by 2019.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found the information was "clearly misleading".
While the brochures said the figures were based on independent studies, they were in fact based on unverified claims in an energy industry association ad.
"There was no reasonable basis for these claims to be made," ACCC acting chairman Michael Schaper said in a statement.
Polaris Solar and ACT Renewable Energy gave an undertaking on Tuesday not to engage in similar conduct in the future and ensure all directors are trained in consumer law.
Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury said it was an important reminder to businesses they could not make false claims about the carbon price.
"This also underscores the fact that the reckless and negative scare campaign run by Tony Abbott and vested interests is putting businesses at risk of breaking the law," Mr Bradbury said.
solar, solar australia
carbon tax,
carbon tax news,
solar,
solar news,
solar power,
solar power carbon tax
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Subsidy Cut Halts Solar Expansion
A SOLAR panel supplier has axed its plans to expand into Queensland after the government revealed it would slash the benefit for supplying power back into the grid - from 44¢ per kilowatt hour to 8¢.
Madison Australia's rethink came as industry lobby group Clean Energy Council argued the policy change could put thousands of jobs at risk, saying householders would reconsider the benefits of installing solar panels given the time taken to recoup their investment.
But Energy Minister Mark McArdle described the solar industry as viable, saying the scheme needed to be changed because all energy users were paying extra on their power bills to subsidise the feed-in tariff for solar panel owners.
Mr McArdle announced yesterday the feed-in tariff for providing power back to the grid would be cut to 8¢ per kilowatt hour, but anyone already in the Solar Bonus Scheme as of July 9 would continue to receive the 44¢ benefit.
Madison Australia director Yorath Briscoe said his Melbourne-based solar installation and retailing company was about to sign contracts in coming weeks to expand into the Gold Coast market.
He said the company had been planning to directly employ six staff in Queensland and contract up to 18 tradespeople, but the cut to the feed-in tariff would hit demand.
“There's going to be massive demand the next 10 days but after that there will be nothing,” he said, adding the company would no longer pursue the Queensland expansion plans.
“It's quite shocking that a government would pull the plug like this.”
The Clean Energy Council said under the current Queensland system, an average householder would break even on the initial investment after 4.5 years.
The average payback period would jump to about 10 years under one scenario modelled in research commissioned by the Clean Energy Council before yesterday's announcement.
But the cost of buying and installing solar panels was expected to progressively decrease in coming years so the break-even point could be less than 10 years for future customers, a council spokesman said.
Madison Australia's rethink came as industry lobby group Clean Energy Council argued the policy change could put thousands of jobs at risk, saying householders would reconsider the benefits of installing solar panels given the time taken to recoup their investment.
But Energy Minister Mark McArdle described the solar industry as viable, saying the scheme needed to be changed because all energy users were paying extra on their power bills to subsidise the feed-in tariff for solar panel owners.
Mr McArdle announced yesterday the feed-in tariff for providing power back to the grid would be cut to 8¢ per kilowatt hour, but anyone already in the Solar Bonus Scheme as of July 9 would continue to receive the 44¢ benefit.
Madison Australia director Yorath Briscoe said his Melbourne-based solar installation and retailing company was about to sign contracts in coming weeks to expand into the Gold Coast market.
He said the company had been planning to directly employ six staff in Queensland and contract up to 18 tradespeople, but the cut to the feed-in tariff would hit demand.
“There's going to be massive demand the next 10 days but after that there will be nothing,” he said, adding the company would no longer pursue the Queensland expansion plans.
“It's quite shocking that a government would pull the plug like this.”
The Clean Energy Council said under the current Queensland system, an average householder would break even on the initial investment after 4.5 years.
The average payback period would jump to about 10 years under one scenario modelled in research commissioned by the Clean Energy Council before yesterday's announcement.
But the cost of buying and installing solar panels was expected to progressively decrease in coming years so the break-even point could be less than 10 years for future customers, a council spokesman said.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Climate Change Envoy Warns Against Cutting Investment in Green Energy
The government's climate change envoy has warned that failure to take more action to invest in a low carbon economy is a threat to the future "prosperity and security" of the British people.
John Ashton, who has just stepped down from his post at the Foreign Office, told MPs that the UK was still considered an influential global player on climate change, but signalled that position was at risk as the country was falling behind on investment in energy efficiency and clean energy.
This in turn would make it harder to meet global targets to limit global warming to 2C - the level at which experts consider most countries will cope with the ensuing disruption to weather patterns.
"Failure to deal with climate change would amplify already dangerous stresses arising from food, water and energy insecurity," Ashton told the energy and climate change select committee. "This potentially unmanageable combination of stresses poses a systemic risk to the security and prosperity of our country."
In 2004 the government's then chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, made headlines around the world when he declared that climate change was "the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism".
However, the growing political consensus for tackling climate change, which culminated in the 2008 Climate Change Act committing the UK to binding emissions reductions, has appeared to be breaking down in the last two years as lack of economic growth and savage public spending cuts have eroded support for sometimes costly policies.
These issues came to a head in February when more than 100 Conservative MPs signed a letter to the prime minister, David Cameron, calling for an end to onshore windfarms.
Ashton, who left his six-year post two weeks ago, said he sympathised with concerns that UK efforts to combat climate change would be an expensive failure if other countries did not follow suit. However in a thinly-veiled warning about the damage done by draining political support for 'green' policies, he said the UK's diplomatic efforts to persuade other countries to reduce the world's reliance on oil and other fossil fuels "depends on what we are doing at home" and the "consensus across the political spectrum".
Ashton also told MPs that far from leading the world, the UK was falling behind important economic competitors such as Germany, Korea, China and Japan in some of the big future industries such as offshore wind energy and carbon capture and storage systems for gas and coal power stations.
"Internationally we must resolve the false choice, exacerbated by the current crisis, between economic security and climate security," said Ashton. "A rapid shift to low carbon growth is essential for security, competitiveness and prosperity, not an intolerable risk to competitiveness, jobs and growth."
"Politically we must address this not as a distraction from our current problems, but as part of the solution to them," he added.
Tory committee member Dr Phillip Lee challenged Ashton, however, suggesting that there were still hundreds of millions of people who wanted a better standard of living in developing countries like China, and in the UK during the recession, who would not support policies which pushed up the price of energy and so goods and services they wanted to buy.
"It's seen that going green is going to slow down the growth that we need," added Lee.
John Ashton, who has just stepped down from his post at the Foreign Office, told MPs that the UK was still considered an influential global player on climate change, but signalled that position was at risk as the country was falling behind on investment in energy efficiency and clean energy.
This in turn would make it harder to meet global targets to limit global warming to 2C - the level at which experts consider most countries will cope with the ensuing disruption to weather patterns.
"Failure to deal with climate change would amplify already dangerous stresses arising from food, water and energy insecurity," Ashton told the energy and climate change select committee. "This potentially unmanageable combination of stresses poses a systemic risk to the security and prosperity of our country."
In 2004 the government's then chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, made headlines around the world when he declared that climate change was "the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism".
However, the growing political consensus for tackling climate change, which culminated in the 2008 Climate Change Act committing the UK to binding emissions reductions, has appeared to be breaking down in the last two years as lack of economic growth and savage public spending cuts have eroded support for sometimes costly policies.
These issues came to a head in February when more than 100 Conservative MPs signed a letter to the prime minister, David Cameron, calling for an end to onshore windfarms.
Ashton, who left his six-year post two weeks ago, said he sympathised with concerns that UK efforts to combat climate change would be an expensive failure if other countries did not follow suit. However in a thinly-veiled warning about the damage done by draining political support for 'green' policies, he said the UK's diplomatic efforts to persuade other countries to reduce the world's reliance on oil and other fossil fuels "depends on what we are doing at home" and the "consensus across the political spectrum".
Ashton also told MPs that far from leading the world, the UK was falling behind important economic competitors such as Germany, Korea, China and Japan in some of the big future industries such as offshore wind energy and carbon capture and storage systems for gas and coal power stations.
"Internationally we must resolve the false choice, exacerbated by the current crisis, between economic security and climate security," said Ashton. "A rapid shift to low carbon growth is essential for security, competitiveness and prosperity, not an intolerable risk to competitiveness, jobs and growth."
"Politically we must address this not as a distraction from our current problems, but as part of the solution to them," he added.
Tory committee member Dr Phillip Lee challenged Ashton, however, suggesting that there were still hundreds of millions of people who wanted a better standard of living in developing countries like China, and in the UK during the recession, who would not support policies which pushed up the price of energy and so goods and services they wanted to buy.
"It's seen that going green is going to slow down the growth that we need," added Lee.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Harvey Norman Invests in Solar Panels
RETAILER Harvey Norman plans to be a market leader in the domestic solar industry after placing a substantial order for user-friendly solar panels.
United States-based Westinghouse said today it had received an order for five megawatts of its Solar Instant Connect solar panel systems from Harvey Norman.
The order represents a significant investment in the green technology, which will result in Westinghouse's shipments in 2012 more than doubling from 2011.
Harvey Norman said the uptake of solar energy in Australia was stronger than in most other parts of the world, with over 830 megawatts sold in the local market in 2011.
"With Australian power pricing continuing to rise, we are continuing to see very strong demand for solar installations," Harvey Norman commercial division franchisee Alan Stephenson said in a statement.
"In addition to supplying kitchen, bathroom items, hot water and air conditioning systems, we have established a solar business, which we believe will be a market leader."
The newly ordered solar panels require Australian certification, and the first shipments to Harvey Norman are expected to begin in late-2012, Westinghouse said.
solar, solar australia
Harvey Norman invests solar,
power australia,
Solar australia,
solar industry,
solar industry news,
solar news,
solar power,
solar power news in australia
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The End of Clean Energy Subsidies?
The federal government has given generously to the clean energy industry over the last few years, funneling billions of dollars in grants, loans and tax breaks to renewable power sources like wind and solar, biofuels and electric vehicles. “Clean tech” has been good in return.
The End of Clean Energy Subsidies?
During the recession, it was one of the few sectors to add jobs. Costs of wind turbines and solar cells have fallen over the last five years, electricity from renewables has more than doubled, construction is under way on the country’s first new nuclear power plant in decades. And the United States remains an important player in the global clean energy market.
Yet this productive relationship is in peril, mainly because federal funding is about to drop off a cliff and the Republican wrecking crew in the House remains generally hostile to programs that threaten the hegemony of the oil and gas interests. The clean energy incentives provided by President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill are coming to an end, while other longer-standing subsidies are expiring.
If nothing changes, clean energy funding will drop from a peak of $44.3 billion in 2009 to $16 billion this year and $11 billion in 2014 — a 75 percent decline.
This alarming news is contained in a new report from experts at the Brookings Institution, the World Resources Institute and the Breakthrough Institute. It is a timely effort to attach real numbers to an increasingly politicized debate over energy subsidies. While Mr. Obama is busily defending subsidies, the Republicans have used the costly market failure of one solar panel company, Solyndra, to indict the entire federal effort to encourage nascent technologies.
The Republican assault obscures real successes that simply would not have been possible without government help. Wind power is a case in point. By spurring innovation and growth, a federal production tax credit for wind amounting to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour has brought the cost of electricity from wind power to a point where it is broadly competitive with natural gas, sustaining 75,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation and maintenance.
But the tax credit is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, with potentially disastrous results: a 75 percent reduction in new investment and a significant drop in jobs. That is just about what happened the last time the credit was allowed to lapse, at the end of 2003.
This is clearly the wrong time to step away from subsidies. But it may be the right time, the report says, to institute reforms, both to make the programs more effective and to make them more salable to budget hawks. One excellent proposal is to make the subsidies long term (ending the present boom or bust cycles) but rejigger them to reward lower costs and better performance.
The idea is not to prop up clean tech industries forever. It is to get them to a point where they can stand on their own — an old-fashioned notion that, one would hope, might appeal even to House Republicans.
The End of Clean Energy Subsidies?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Huge Solar Project in Limbo as Newman Pulls Funding
The first chance to test whether solar thermal energy can provide large-scale alternative power in Australia may be in doubt under the new LNP state government.
The incoming Queensland government wants to pull out of an agreement formed by its predecessor to provide $75 million towards the $1.2 billion Solar Dawn solar research and power plant at Chinchilla, west of Toowoomba, Premier Campbell Newman said yesterday.
The Solar Dawn project is set to be one of the largest of its kind in the world.
Mr Newman said following the first LNP party room meeting the cost of the federal government's looming carbon tax would affect the state economy and public sector, and said Queensland would be “paying twice” if state-based climate change initiatives were not dumped.
However he said the green programs set to be axed under his government could be revived if the carbon tax was scrapped.
Mr Newman said during the state election campaign he wanted to dismantle Queensland’s carbon reduction schemes to save $270 million for the state budget.
Solar Dawn is a 250 megawatt solar thermal project using sun-heated water in tubes to produce steam-driven energy, and is backed by the federal government and was supported by former Premier Anna Bligh.
It is part of the federal government’s Solar Flagship Program. A similar project at Moree, in New South Wales, has received federal funding under the same program.
The University of Queensland has developed a $60 million research project to link to Solar Dawn.
UQ's Professor Paul Meredith, the head of the university’s renewable energy research, said he was worried the LNP’s decision would damage what he thought was a worthwhile project and one that provided almost 400 jobs.
‘‘Hypothetically if the state contibution of $75 million does not flow that leaves a very big hole in the project’s funding,’’ Professor Meredith said.
‘‘And I think it is anybody’s guess what the Federal Government will do at that point.’’
The Gillard Government has promised $475 million and the Bligh Government agreed in February this year to give $75 million in a ‘‘conditional agreement’’ to help build the huge solar thermal plant, which is scheduled to be operating by December 2015.
The project must reach ‘‘financial close’’ by June 30 this year.
Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson, speaking in Queensland yesterday, said he was surprised the new state government was considering backing out of Solar Dawn.
‘‘As the ’Sunshine State’, Queensland is well-suited for a significant solar thermal project able to competitively deliver electricity to the grid,’’ Mr Ferguson said.
‘‘Given the new Premier’s focus on jobs and training, it is worth noting the Solar Dawn project brings with it an average of 300 jobs during the three-year construction phase, with a peak of 450 jobs.’’
Mr Newman has an election promise to reduce Queensland’s unemployment to four per cent in six years.
‘‘If the new Queensland Government chose to breach the existing financial commitment to the Solar Dawn project, the Australian Government would need to consider its own position,’’ Mr Ferguson said.
The other main funding for Solar Dawn is coming from two joint venture partners: AREVA Solar and Wind Prospect CWP.
Solar Dawn project director Anthony Wiseman said his organisation had received no advice from the incoming Newman government that it would not provide the money.
‘‘Solar Dawn has not been notified of any change of intentions of the Queensland Government under the terms of the existing conditional agreement and we continue to work with relevant parties on developing our proposed project,’’ his statement read.
Solar Dawn would not answer what impact the removal of the $75 million in state government funds would have on the project.
Mr Newman said the LNP would examine any contractual commitments entered into by the previous government, but would not “in some silly way” scrap the contract if the cost outweighed the savings.
“If we can exit this project and save $75 million we will,” Mr Newman said yesterday.
Mr Newman has said the Queensland Government was contributing to projects that should federally funded.
The incoming Queensland government wants to pull out of an agreement formed by its predecessor to provide $75 million towards the $1.2 billion Solar Dawn solar research and power plant at Chinchilla, west of Toowoomba, Premier Campbell Newman said yesterday.
The Solar Dawn project is set to be one of the largest of its kind in the world.
Mr Newman said following the first LNP party room meeting the cost of the federal government's looming carbon tax would affect the state economy and public sector, and said Queensland would be “paying twice” if state-based climate change initiatives were not dumped.
However he said the green programs set to be axed under his government could be revived if the carbon tax was scrapped.
Mr Newman said during the state election campaign he wanted to dismantle Queensland’s carbon reduction schemes to save $270 million for the state budget.
Solar Dawn is a 250 megawatt solar thermal project using sun-heated water in tubes to produce steam-driven energy, and is backed by the federal government and was supported by former Premier Anna Bligh.
It is part of the federal government’s Solar Flagship Program. A similar project at Moree, in New South Wales, has received federal funding under the same program.
The University of Queensland has developed a $60 million research project to link to Solar Dawn.
UQ's Professor Paul Meredith, the head of the university’s renewable energy research, said he was worried the LNP’s decision would damage what he thought was a worthwhile project and one that provided almost 400 jobs.
‘‘Hypothetically if the state contibution of $75 million does not flow that leaves a very big hole in the project’s funding,’’ Professor Meredith said.
‘‘And I think it is anybody’s guess what the Federal Government will do at that point.’’
The Gillard Government has promised $475 million and the Bligh Government agreed in February this year to give $75 million in a ‘‘conditional agreement’’ to help build the huge solar thermal plant, which is scheduled to be operating by December 2015.
The project must reach ‘‘financial close’’ by June 30 this year.
Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson, speaking in Queensland yesterday, said he was surprised the new state government was considering backing out of Solar Dawn.
‘‘As the ’Sunshine State’, Queensland is well-suited for a significant solar thermal project able to competitively deliver electricity to the grid,’’ Mr Ferguson said.
‘‘Given the new Premier’s focus on jobs and training, it is worth noting the Solar Dawn project brings with it an average of 300 jobs during the three-year construction phase, with a peak of 450 jobs.’’
Mr Newman has an election promise to reduce Queensland’s unemployment to four per cent in six years.
‘‘If the new Queensland Government chose to breach the existing financial commitment to the Solar Dawn project, the Australian Government would need to consider its own position,’’ Mr Ferguson said.
The other main funding for Solar Dawn is coming from two joint venture partners: AREVA Solar and Wind Prospect CWP.
Solar Dawn project director Anthony Wiseman said his organisation had received no advice from the incoming Newman government that it would not provide the money.
‘‘Solar Dawn has not been notified of any change of intentions of the Queensland Government under the terms of the existing conditional agreement and we continue to work with relevant parties on developing our proposed project,’’ his statement read.
Solar Dawn would not answer what impact the removal of the $75 million in state government funds would have on the project.
Mr Newman said the LNP would examine any contractual commitments entered into by the previous government, but would not “in some silly way” scrap the contract if the cost outweighed the savings.
“If we can exit this project and save $75 million we will,” Mr Newman said yesterday.
Mr Newman has said the Queensland Government was contributing to projects that should federally funded.
solar, solar australia
solar,
Solar australia,
solar industry,
solar news,
solar news australia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






