German excellence again as opposed to Australian mediocrity and Luddite mentality :(


Quote:

An aerial view shows the Lieberose solar farm, which became the world's second biggest solar power plant and Germany's biggest. Photo: Reuters

http://images.theage.com.au/2012/02/17/3051530/art-germany-solar-panels-420x0.jpg


Quote:

AN ARCHITECT of Germany's rapid growth in clean energy - it has nearly half the world's rooftop solar power - has warned that Australia's climate policies will not alone drive a switch to greenhouse-gas-free electricity. Germany reached its 2020 target of generating a fifth of its electricity from renewable sources nine years ahead of schedule, largely through feed-in tariffs that guarantee new power forms an inflated rate for the power they use to make them competitive. It installed 3 gigawatts of solar photovoltaic panels in December alone - roughly enough for 1.5 million homes. Australia has less than half this in total. Hans-Josef Fell, an author of the German Renewable Energies Act introduced in 2000 and a Greens MP, backed the Australian carbon price as a positive step that would start to factor in the cost of burning fossil fuels to the climate and people's health. But he said the experience of the European emissions trading scheme suggested Australia's laws alone would not trigger the uptake of clean energy. Speaking in Melbourne, he said feed-in tariffs were needed to help solar, wind, biomass and geothermal power overcome barriers that made them more expensive than fossil fuel energy. He cited International Energy Agency data that found global subsidies for fossil fuel energy increased to $US409 billion in 2010 ($A380 billion), compared with $US64 billion for renewable energy. ''In the beginning, all new technologies are more expensive than existing technologies, so we must help them,'' Mr Fell said. ''We must make money available for renewables and lower the tax subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power.'' The Australian laws - dubbed the ''clean energy future package'' by the government - include a carbon price of $23 a tonne charged to about 500 big emitting companies. It starts in July and will evolve into an emissions trading scheme in 2015. The package also includes a $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in and underwrite the development of fledgling technologies. But the government opposes feed-in tariffs and is reducing a national solar incentive scheme. State solar feed-in tariffs have been wound back. In Germany there is a debate over how quickly to reduce its solar tariff given the cost of panels is falling rapidly. It installed 7.5 gigawatts last year. Renewable energy increased German power prices by about 10 per cent. Mr Fell said analyses showed the rise would have been greater without investment in clean sources. Hans-Josef Fell speaks at BMW Edge, Federation Square, at 3pm today as part of the Sustainable Living Festival. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/german-experience-clean-energy-requires-subsidies-20120217-1teju.html#ixzz1mmxVvSA1

You've gone all very pro-German all of a sudden.

Have you discovered German porn or something???

The intention of the Australian policies is to reduce GHG emissions, not to 'drive a switch to greenhouse-gas-free electricity'. It is this mistake in goal setting that has cost Germany so dearly and which was heavily criticised in recent comparisons of the relative cost of various measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Australia is going with a cheaper, more effective option. The only downside is fewer photoshoot opportunities for politicians beside enourmous shiny new installations.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:

You've gone all very pro-German all of a sudden. Have you discovered German porn or something???

Nail has discovered that the Germans are doing well with renewable energy
& in manufacturing & he wants us to copy them.

What is wrong with that?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:

You've gone all very pro-German all of a sudden. Have you discovered German porn or something???

no I have discovered how many useless overpaid people we have in Australia :(

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

The intention of the Australian policies is to reduce GHG emissions, not to 'drive a switch to greenhouse-gas-free electricity'. It is this mistake in goal setting that has cost Germany so dearly and which was heavily criticised in recent comparisons of the relative cost of various measures to reduce GHG emissions. Australia is going with a cheaper, more effective option. The only downside is fewer photoshoot opportunities for politicians beside enourmous shiny new installations.

what cheaper option ??

like switching from origin energy to AGL energy ?? :D LOL

those are great options for the consumer :(

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19th, 2012 at 12:16pm: You've gone all very pro-German all of a sudden. Have you discovered German porn or something??? Nail has discovered that the Germans are doing well with renewable energy & in manufacturing & he wants us to copy them. What is wrong with that?

notice how aussies always find lame excuses not to do anything when it comes to technology. But lets pay lots of wordsmiths megabucks to come up with absolutely nothing :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 12:27pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2012 at 12:19pm: The intention of the Australian policies is to reduce GHG emissions, not to 'drive a switch to greenhouse-gas-free electricity'. It is this mistake in goal setting that has cost Germany so dearly and which was heavily criticised in recent comparisons of the relative cost of various measures to reduce GHG emissions. Australia is going with a cheaper, more effective option. The only downside is fewer photoshoot opportunities for politicians beside enourmous shiny new installations. what cheaper option ?? like switching from origin energy to AGL energy ?? :D LOL those are great options for the consumer :(

For a start, there is using less electricity. There are plenty of ways to reduce emissions by reducing consumption that are far cheaper than renewable energy.

Unfortunately it is hard for a politician to have their photo taken beside a reduction in electricity consumption.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 19th, 2012 at 12:21pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 19th, 2012 at 12:16pm: You've gone all very pro-German all of a sudden. Have you discovered German porn or something??? Nail has discovered that the Germans are doing well with renewable energy & in manufacturing & he wants us to copy them. What is wrong with that? notice how aussies always find lame excuses not to do anything when it comes to technology. But lets pay lots of wordsmiths megabucks to come up with absolutely nothing :(

And Accountants  ;)

;D

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 19th, 2012 at 12:27pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2012 at 12:19pm: The intention of the Australian policies is to reduce GHG emissions, not to 'drive a switch to greenhouse-gas-free electricity'. It is this mistake in goal setting that has cost Germany so dearly and which was heavily criticised in recent comparisons of the relative cost of various measures to reduce GHG emissions. Australia is going with a cheaper, more effective option. The only downside is fewer photoshoot opportunities for politicians beside enourmous shiny new installations. what cheaper option ?? like switching from origin energy to AGL energy ?? :D LOL those are great options for the consumer :( For a start, there is using less electricity. There are plenty of ways to reduce emissions by reducing consumption that are far cheaper than renewable energy. Unfortunately it is hard for a politician to have their photo taken beside a reduction in electricity consumption.

That's just fiddling around the edges. We need to get away from using non renewable energy sources. Reducing energy consumption by a marginal amount only just delays the inevitable. We've been through the energy saver light bulb replacement phase and now its time to get serious.

And when was the last time you saw a photo op with a poli standing next to something like this ??

http://images.theage.com.au/2012/02/17/3051530/art-germany-solar-panels-420x0.jpg

Quote:

That's just fiddling around the edges.

Building a solar plant does not actually reduce your GHG emissions unless you stop producing power elsewhere. This does not happen when you subsidise the electricity industry.

Putting  price on GHG emissions can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction in GHG emissions in any time frame you want. It will do this far cheaper than subsidising renewables and will also achieve renewable energy investment - but only when the cheaper options have been exhausted.

Regardless of what rate of change you want, going with the more expensive options before the cheap ones is a bad idea and will slow you down in the long run.


Quote:

We've been through the energy saver light bulb replacement phase

You have no concept of the huge potential of emissions reductions via reducing consumption. Light bulbs were fiddling around the eges, but this is far bigger.

freediver - on Green House Gas emissions-

Quote:

Putting  price on GHG emissions can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction in GHG emissions in any time frame you want. It will do this far cheaper than subsidising renewables and will also achieve renewable energy investment - but only when the cheaper options have been exhausted.

FD,
If that's true then why did Obama say that the USA will not follow that system?

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Quote: That's just fiddling around the edges. Building a solar plant does not actually reduce your GHG emissions unless you stop producing power elsewhere. This does not happen when you subsidise the electricity industry. Putting  price on GHG emissions can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction in GHG emissions in any time frame you want. It will do this far cheaper than subsidising renewables and will also achieve renewable energy investment - but only when the cheaper options have been exhausted. Regardless of what rate of change you want, going with the more expensive options before the cheap ones is a bad idea and will slow you down in the long run. [quote]We've been through the energy saver light bulb replacement phase

You have no concept of the huge potential of emissions reductions via reducing consumption. Light bulbs were fiddling around the eges, but this is far bigger.[/quote]

You can only improve energy efficiency so much which offers no insurance against an ever rising population base.
What you are suggesting is just a temporary measure not a solution to the ever growing energy needs of an expanding world population. Only cleaning up emissions at the source using clean is the best long term solution and the Germans have already worked this out.

Quote:

If that's true then why did Obama say that the USA will not follow that system?

Did you read what I said about photo opportunities?


Quote:

You can only improve energy efficiency so much which offers no insurance against an ever rising population base.

I am not suggesting we limit ourselves to improvements in energy efficiency. A price on carbon targets all available options. It would only favour efficiency to the extent that it is cheaper.


Quote:

What you are suggesting is just a temporary measure not a solution

Can you explain why a mechanism that can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction over any time frame for a lower cost can only be temporary?

You are the only person suggesting we limit ourself to one particular solution.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Building a solar plant does not actually reduce your GHG emissions unless you stop producing power elsewhere. This does not happen when you subsidise the electricity industry.

You have a point there. Imagine if we made a great leap forward in renewable energy but didn't flush out the energy parasites in our economic infrastructure that are hard to find. We'd end up with a highly inefficient system. We could keep making improvements, but we wouldn't solve the smaller but not insignificant problems in the system that hold us back. Better to flush out those baddies first and then move on.


Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 5:24pm:

You can only improve energy efficiency so much which offers no insurance against an ever rising population base. What you are suggesting is just a temporary measure not a solution to the ever growing energy needs of an expanding world population. Only cleaning up emissions at the source using clean is the best long term solution and the Germans have already worked this out.

People haven't forgotten about solar panels, but they might forget to improve energy efficiency.

For example, to survive the heat in summer, you don't necessarily need air conditioning. Just close all doors and windows, pull down the blinds, take off your clothes and switch on a fan and you'll survive. Cleaning up emissions at the "load" is just as important as cleaning up emissions at the source.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

Quote: If that's true then why did Obama say that the USA will not follow that system? Did you read what I said about photo opportunities? [quote]You can only improve energy efficiency so much which offers no insurance against an ever rising population base.

I am not suggesting we limit ourselves to improvements in energy efficiency. A price on carbon targets all available options. It would only favour efficiency to the extent that it is cheaper.


Quote:

What you are suggesting is just a temporary measure not a solution

Can you explain why a mechanism that can achieve anywhere between a 0% and 100% reduction over any time frame for a lower cost can only be temporary?

You are the only person suggesting we limit ourself to one particular solution.[/quote]

Burning fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy is false economy simply because being a finite resource will cost more over time as the source of it becomes depleted. Sooner or later there will no longer be anything to set fire too and you will have to rely on renewable energy no matter what cost !!

I invite you to respond to what I actually posted TNL.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

Quote: If that's true then why did Obama say that the USA will not follow that system? Did you read what I said about photo opportunities?

FD -
You mean

Quote:

Unfortunately it is hard for a politician to have their photo taken beside a reduction in electricity consumption.

What is your point freediver?
Please try not to be so cryptic.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

I invite you to respond to what I actually posted TNL.

I never wrote that about obama so why are you confusing the debate ??]

And like I said where have you ever seen a photo opp in Australia next to the second biggest solar farm in the world ??

You don't see it because aussies are only good at manufacturing excuses not to manufacture anything. Just look at your own replies ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

[quote author=72667171707D627166140 link=1329616535/16#16 date=1329700164] You don't see it because aussies are only good at manufacturing excuses not to manufacture anything. Just look at your own replies ;)

Australians have nothing on your ability squirm out a pathetic excuse on why you don't own an battery EV.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 3:59pm: [quote author=72667171707D627166140 link=1329616535/16#16 date=1329700164] You don't see it because aussies are only good at manufacturing excuses not to manufacture anything. Just look at your own replies ;) Australians have nothing on your ability squirm out a pathetic excuse on why you don't own an battery EV.  ;D

Listen you techically ignorant piece of rubbish.

maybe I should have the worlds biggest solar farm in my back yard as well otherwise I shouldn't talk about that either.

Quote:

What is your point freediver? Please try not to be so cryptic.

My point is that using pricing mechanisms to encourage a reducing in GHG emissions is a far superior option from an economic and environmental eprspective, just not a political one. It is not a vote winner like planting trees or handouts for rooftop solar.

Though I am working hard to change that.