By Andrew Bolt ~
Let me demonstrate how our politicians are spending billions to give you more expensive and unreliable electricity just to pretend to stop global warming that they pretend is catastrophic.
We are paying a Saudi billionaire $300 million to pretend to make a difference to the climate by ruining our electricity supply:
Australians are set to pay $300 million in subsidies to an outback solar farm owned by a Saudi Arabian billionaire in a new test of the federal government’s looming energy reforms, escalating a dispute over whether to cut the handouts to keep coal-fired power stations alive.
AGL’s controversial Liddell coal power station in the NSW Hunter Valley generates 50 times as much electricity as the Moree solar farm in the state’s north, which stands to gain big subsidies from households from higher electricity bills until 2030, as the government vows to ease the pressure on prices.
Former Nationals MP Ron Boswell says end these mad subsidies:
In recent years, the renewable energy target has delivered subsidies of about $9 billion to renewable projects. And over the next 13 years, renewable projects will receive another $36bn…
More than any other policy action before or since, the RET [renewable energy target] is responsible for today’s energy mess. Force-feeding high-cost, unreliable energy into the National Electricity Market killed off any investment in baseload energy and made the grid more expensive and more unstable…
The simple fact is that a new clean energy target would simply be renaming and extending the RET… At a CET certificate price of $60 a megawatt hour, wind and solar will receive consumer subsidies of $60/MWh, while a new, ultra-supercritical coal plant would receive just $3.75/MWh.
The problem is that a CET values emissions intensity but not security of supply. As a result a CET is heavily weighted towards unreliable renewable energy and fails to recognise the necessity of baseload energy. The Finkel review effectively conceded this, arguing that under a CET renewable energy would more than double to almost 42 per cent…
If a wind farm gets guaranteed market share and an $60/MWh subsidy it is going to drive out lower-cost competitors such as gas and coal.
A good example of the staggering scale of renewable subsidies is the Moree Solar Farm in NSW. This project has received a $102m taxpayer grant and a $60m taxpayer-funded concessional loan, and will receive $141m in production subsidies (by 2030) … In the next 13 years, the project will receive more than $300m in subsidies but deliver about 1/68th (or 1.45 per cent) of the output of the Hazelwood power station that closed in Victoria earlier this year.
Nick Cater on the Renewable Energy Target:
The hypocrisy of the compassionate class takes your breath away. On one page The Sydney Morning Herald wails about the plight of the vulnerable, on the next page it’s slamming them with demands to increase the RET.
If there were a prize for most heartless headline of the year, Peter Martin’s column in the Herald last Saturday would have to be in the running. “Get real,” it read. “Electricity isn’t that expensive.”
No word — obviously — in Martin’s column about the jobs being lost because of high power prices. Perhaps it is because energy-stressed sectors employ a disproportionate number of blue-collar workers. Few graduates take up careers in steel fabrication.
Freezing the RET at the present level of 23.5 per cent will do little to ease the short-term burden, but it will at least send a signal that renewable energy must stand — or crumble — on its own two feet. The renewable sector must be made to carry the cost of its own instability instead of passing it on to mugs like us.
Andrew Bolt writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and The Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog. On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on Sky News at 7pm and his Macquarie Radio show at 8pm with Steve Price.
Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog . http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Grumpy Old Man
Wed 09/20/2017
Ridiculous!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Powering Our Futures
Tue 09/19/2017
The coal industry itself has been propped up by subsidies over the years, and we know that the market is demanding change as we work to meet our international commitments.
The important thing however is it ensure that the workers in the coal industry are supported during this transition.
Check out our site for more.
Alex
LikeLike
TonyfromOz
Tue 09/19/2017
Hmm!
I was just wondering here, just musing to myself, you know!
Coal fired power propped up by subsidies over the years eh!
Up until recently, all the coal fired power plants in New South Wales, Victoria, and in South Australia were actually owned by the State Governments, and all but one and part of another are still owned by the State Government in Queensland.
Sooooo, if as you say, they have been propped up by subsidies, then surely (if that has ever happened) then the State is (has been) propping up its own enterprise, which, umm, sort of defeats the whole purpose of a subsidy, when they are then getting paid back in the sale of electricity, eh! Sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and please don’t say that the sale of electricity wouldn’t be paying that much, because, just in Queensland alone, the sale of the electricity generated by those coal fired power plants they already own is a nice little earner, netting around $3.4 Billion a year. And it’s not like they have to pay for the coal, as they own the coal mines which supply those power plants, and it’s not like they have to pay to have the coal transported to the plants, as they also own the rail network, and the trains too.
Why would you even bother subsidising them at all? There’s no point.
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment.
Tony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonytran2015
Tue 09/19/2017
Subsidies makes intentional distortion of economic growth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jamie Spry
Tue 09/19/2017
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“The renewable sector must be made to carry the cost of its own instability instead of passing it on to mugs like us.”
$300 million of Saudi corporate welfare to support a product that can’t even supply about 1/68th (or 1.45 per cent) of the output of the Hazelwood power station that closed in Victoria earlier this year.
Criminal. And, insane.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grumpy Old Man
Wed 09/20/2017
Amen!
LikeLiked by 1 person