Renewable Energy Target.

[swingdog]

No what energy companies need to do is actually get solar customers to pay for the infrastructure they still use (how do you think the energy they generate gets back onto the grid?).

That or cut them off from the grid entirely and let them fend for themselves. In that case more then happy for them to not pay a cent in the future (after paying for the infrastructure that was previously used).

So, in effect, you think there shouldn't be solar in this country. Not going to happen.

 

[Maggie5]

When does this happen? What about everyday?

Is there enough sunlight at night to power solar cells? What do you do? Solar cells are only at peak capacity at certain times during the day.

Why don't all those people with solar panels on their roof right now disconnect themselves from the grid entirely if they are so confident?

Maybe you need to actually read my posts:



Already know about molten salt. How much would it of cost to build a coal power station with the same output?

The government is not interested in subsidizing energy sources that not only cost billions to build but also are more expensive to run then current energy sources. THOSE MONSTERS!

The real issue is that renewables are not price competitive. If they were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Shouldn't really ask you to answer, especially when you make a statement like you did.
Anyway, I provided the link to molten salt as example of what is really viable to date, who knows what else they will come up with.
Regarding building a coal power station, old fuel and besides for us in Victoria I was under the understanding that price with be the same as the export price? If that is the case and their is a world shortage, up go the prices due to eternal demand, how is that fair. Further as you are not an environmentalist, I won't go any further.

 

[Max zero]

So, in effect, you think there shouldn't be solar in this country. Not going to happen.

No I think people should pay for what they use.

The infrastructure is being used whether its from a centralised point or distributed. Unless you take everyone off the grid. You willing to do that?

The fact is solar panel users still want the backup of fossil/gas power generation when solar does not cut it but then complain about the infrastructure costs that make that possible. They also use the infrastructure to 'sell' the power they generate (which the power company does not even need) and claim that they a energy neutral (or close to it).

People need to understand that power generation isn't the driving force for power costs. Its infrastructure creation and maintainance.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[pokerspiv]

When do you think that this may happen?

Every day and every night, which is why we don't use solar and wind power much.

 

[Max zero]

Shouldn't really ask you to answer, especially when you make a statement like you did.
Anyway, I provided the link to molten salt as example of what is really viable to date, who knows what else they will come up with.
Regarding building a coal power station, old fuel and besides for us in Victoria I was under the understanding that price with be the same as the export price? If that is the case and their is a world shortage, up go the prices due to eternal demand, how is that fair. Further as you are not an environmentalist, I won't go any further.

Which was my point all along. Maybe in the future it could compete.

But the fact is at the moment it can't. So why push to install something that can't compete instead of waiting for something that can? If it's such a forgone conclusion why throw money away now?

This is why you have this stupidity with solar panel users whinning about rebates and costs. Power generation and infrastructure just does not work like that. They aren't actually saving any power.

They seem to be stuck on the idea that since the power is generated from solar or wind that is is somehow free. They are incorrect.

 

[swingdog]

No I think people should pay for what they use.

The infrastructure is being used whether its from a centralised point or distributed. Unless you take everyone off the grid. You willing to do that?

The fact is solar panel users still want the backup of fossil/gas power generation when solar does not cut it but then complain about the infrastructure costs that make that possible. They also use the infrastructure to 'sell' the power they generate (which the power company does not even need) and claim that they a energy neutral (or close to it).

People need to understand that power generation isn't the driving force for power costs. Its infrastructure creation and maintainance.

You can't have it both ways.

And I think people - whether they have solar or not - shouldn't pay for bad investment decisions.

 

[Max zero]

And I think people - whether they have solar or not - shouldn't pay for bad investment decisions.

How is it a bad investment if the infrastructure is being utilised?

In anything solar users need the infrastructure more because:

1) They both use and generate depending on the time of the day.
2) The grid allows energy to distribute from oversupplied areas to under supplied areas (particularily important with renewable due to its variability).

But hey if solar uses don't think they need the fossil fuel backup or infrastructure they can cut the wires and go off on their own.

 

[Gough]

Just out of interest Max, does your day gig involve digging s**t up?

 

[Max zero]

Just out of interest Max, does your day gig involve digging s**t up?

It used to.

But I was more involved in digging up shiny stuff rather then stuff for burning.

Aviation nowdays.

 

[swingdog]

This is about whether you want to develop a new industry in Australia, or not. It's not like keeping dying industries, like vehicle manufacturing, going.

All new industries require support to get established. I agree that at some point, you decrease or withdraw support. In this instance, it would have been smarter to do so later when we could have developed some expertise and capacity which we could have exported, rather than simply buying Chinese and German technology.

These technologies will replace the old technologies; it's a matter of when, not if.

 

[Floor Pie]

It used to.

But I was more involved in digging up shiny stuff rather then stuff for burning.

Aviation nowdays.

 

[Max zero]

This is about whether you want to develop a new industry in Australia, or not. It's not like keeping dying industries, like vehicle manufacturing, going.

All new industries require support to get established. I agree that at some point, you decrease or withdraw support. In this instance, it would have been smarter to do so later when we could have developed some expertise and capacity which we could have exported, rather than simply buying Chinese and German technology.

These technologies will replace the old technologies; it's a matter of when, not if.

No problem with new industries replacing old or helping new industries start off. The question is renewables really a new industry or simply a replacement from an old one? The power has to come from somwhere.

I would prefer that it be as cheap as possible. With our cheap access to quality coal it will take quite some time before renewable is competitive in Australia. Eventually it will but why hurry it? Its one thing to help something to start up its quite another to have continually subsidize so that it can even compete.

Thats where solar panels in Australia are today. They can't compete. They use the infrastructure more then regular users yet don't want to help to maintain said infrastructure.

They are given thousands of dollors in rebates to build it and get paid for energy generation we don't even need. What more do they want?

 

[Max zero]

Stick the metal detector to the kite stupid.

Mining exploration using renewable energy.

 

[swingdog]

No problem with new industries replacing old or helping new industries start off. The question is renewables really a new industry or simply a replacement from an old one? The power has to come from somwhere.

I would prefer that it be as cheap as possible. With our cheap access to quality coal it will take quite some time before renewable is competitive in Australia. Eventually it will but why hurry it? Its one thing to help something to start up its quite another to have continually subsidize so that it can even compete.

Thats where solar panels in Australia are today. They can't compete. They use the infrastructure more then regular users yet don't want to help to maintain said infrastructure.

They are given thousands of dollors in rebates to build it and get paid for energy generation we don't even need. What more do they want?

Of course, underlying all this is climate change. I'm guessing you don't agree with the science and a need to act. If so, that's pretty much where this discussion ends as we're talking past one another.

 

[Max zero]

Of course, underlying all this is climate change. I'm guessing you don't agree with the science and a need to act. If so, that's pretty much where this discussion ends as we're talking past one another.

I'm all for tackling climate change.

What I am not for is hobbling the international competitiveness of our industries (which frankly already struggle as is) and damaging our own economy.

For me I am looking at Brazil, South Africa and Canada. Those are our main export competitors. If they are willing to enact genuine changes (ie actually has an effect and is not posturing) that weakens their competitiveness then I would be willing to match those changes.

Otherwise all we are doing is shooting ourselves in the foot for no gain.

 

[Gough]

BHPs recent profit suggests our miners are not exactly doing it tough.

 

[Max zero]

BHPs recent profit suggests our miners are not exactly doing it tough.

On how much revenue? What was their net profit margin? How does that compare to the rest of the mining industry? How does the overall profit margins in the mining industry compare to other industries? What is their risk profile?

My point its easy to say 13.8 billion OMG! Its a bit more complicated then that. The fact that they spent on 15 billion on exploration alone (with no guarantee of paying off) says a lot.

 

[Gough]

How much of that 15 billion on exploration was subsidised?

 

[Max zero]

How much of that 15 billion on exploration was subsidised?

Judging by the fall in exploration expenditure over the last few years and the amount of exploration companies that fail, I suspect not that much.

I think exploration subsidies are primarily tax writeoffs once you get the mine going. If the mine never gets going...

Could be wrong though not my area of expertise.

 

[Gough]

Judging by the fall in exploration expenditure over the last few years and the amount of exploration companies that fail, I suspect not that much.

I think exploration subsidise are primarily tax writeoffs once you get the mine going. If the mine never gets going...

So your happy for the government to subsidise something that may not see one red cent in return and yet the renewable sector which seemingly has a strong future and is already showing nascent signs of profitablity should be ignored, is this your argument?

 

[Northalives]

On how much revenue? What was their net profit margin? How does that compare to the rest of the mining industry? How does the overall profit margins in the mining industry compare to other industries? What is their risk profile?

My point its easy to say 13.8 billion OMG! Its a bit more complicated then that. The fact that they spent on 15 billion on exploration alone (with no guarantee of paying off) says a lot.

I wish people would take a close look at how exploration is conducted in this country.

There is 100% tax deductibility for all exploration costs and all preproduction costs which includes any interest paid. Gee, that's a real burden on the mining firm hey?

 

[Max zero]

So your happy for the government to subsidise something that may not see one red cent in return and yet the renewable sector which seemingly has a strong future and is already showing nascent signs of profitablity should be ignored, is this your argument?

Didn't read my post did you?

To my understanding the majority of subsidies are tax writeoffs. If the mine does not get started there is nothing to tax (so the tax writeoffs don't apply). The end result being that the company does not end up getting the subsidy.

Basically unless the mine actually gets up and going and providing a taxable income then there is no subsidy.

 

[Max zero]

I wish people would take a close look at how exploration is conducted in this country.

There is 100% tax deductibility for all exploration costs and all preproduction costs which includes any interest paid. Gee, that's a real burden on the mining firm hey?

Which is kinda my point. The mine has to actually get started first. If they exploration fails, the millions they have spent is lost.

Once the mine gets started the country its in gains all the employment benefits, all the infrastructure benefits, royalties, etc. They have to forgo tax benefits for a couple of years in exchange.

The fact is the vast majority of the economic benefits from a mine occur in the country its in. Where do you think all that expenditure on costs associated with mining go?

Its actually a pretty clever way to encourage mining exploration. The company takes all the risk and the government only pays once the mine is up and running. But the other economic benefits of the mine outweigh the temporary loss of tax income.

 

[Northalives]

Didn't read my post did you?

To my understanding the majority of subsidies are tax writeoffs. If the mine does not get started there is nothing to tax (so the tax writeoffs don't apply). The end result being that the company does not end up getting the subsidy.

Basically unless the mine actually gets up and going and providing a taxable income then there is no subsidy.

No. What you have to do is get finance initially to go exploring and whether you "discover" anything or not, all is re-embursed by the tax payer. It's as simple as that.

 

[Gough]

Regardless, why should the mining industry be the sole beneficiaries of these subsidies/tax write offs, whatever you wish to call them when they are about to be denied to the renewables sector? Surely if the government is all about the open market and equality of oppourtunity, they either provide these to both sectors or neither of them.