News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Green energy scheme 'a fraud' 

Green energy scheme 'a fraud'

23 Dec, 2009 06:38 AM
KEVIN RUDD'S environmental agenda is under attack on two fronts, with the country's biggest private renewable energy business declaring his green power target at risk of failure.

As criticism of the emissions trading scheme grows bolder after the fractured Copenhagen summit, AGL has labelled the administration of the the renewable energy target a fraud.

The Prime Minister, in his first public comments since returning from Denmark, said plans for an ETS would not be affected by the Copenhagen Accord. But he faces calls to ensure the integrity of his renewable energy policy, aimed at encouraging companies to invest in green power.

AGL threatened not to invest in alternative energy forms until the Government addressed a collapse in the price of certificates designed to encourage investment.

The threat highlights the risks hanging over $30 billion of expected investment needed to reach a target of obtaining 20 per cent of power from renewable sources by 2020.

The managing director of AGL, Michael Fraser, said the Government's approach was a fraud that threatened the industry's ability to meet the target.

To encourage investment, energy companies receive renewable energy certificates in return for building green power stations. But the value of these certificates has almost halved, from near $60 to about $30 since the Government began issuing them to consumers who install solar hot water systems and other products that do not generate power.

Because of the price fall, Mr Fraser said, plans to build the $800 million Macarthur wind farm in Victoria were under enormous pressure. The project is expected to create 500 jobs during construction and Mr Fraser said up to seven other wind farms being considered were also under threat.

The only new wind farms AGL would definitely build were those required under contracts to supply power to desalination plants for the Victorian and South Australian governments.

''Beyond that, you simply won't see us invest until this issue gets resolved,'' Mr Fraser said.

A spokeswoman for the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, said a Council of Australian Governments review of certificate prices was expected this month. The spokeswoman acknowledged prices had been affected by the uptake of solar water heaters but said uncertainty about the ETS was understood to be lowering prices.

Yesterday Mr Rudd ruled out boosting reduction targets to more than 25 per cent, which might enable the Government to reach common ground with the Greens' more ambitious goals.

Amid calls from the Australian Aluminium Council and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for more delays to a scheme, Mr Rudd said the Government's approach had not wavered. ''Some will oppose it, others will support it. But it's clear cut,'' he said.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has written to Mr Rudd, asking him to commission and release further Treasury modelling on the impact of an ETS, after previous modelling had assumed a global trading system.

Mr Abbott appeared to signal that the Opposition would oppose attempts to increase emissions reductions targets beyond 5 per cent.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
AGL and their wind farms are the biggest fraud around. Why should consumers subsidise them? they provide a trickle of intermittant power, basically relying on luck. If they need greed oh sorry green certificates to be viable then what does that say? Wind power is only supported by a few silly city greens who dont care if we have blackouts, anyone with knowledge of generating systems would dismiss it as a joke
Posted by green gary, 23/12/2009 9:04:55 PM
Why do wind energy companies always bleat like little lambs looking for extra handouts from the govt to make their business more profitable? I doubt there would be any other industry that relies on handouts more than these carpetbaggers. If your product was any good you wouldnt need a handout!
Posted by mick, 24/12/2009 6:57:25 AM
geeze mick a lot of people would say farmers fit your description perfectly. The whole idea is that the coal fired pwer stations do not pay for the carbon emissions nor the "damage" they do in the environment and if they did then green power would be more competitive. So tax the coal or support the alternatives
Posted by the lorax, 24/12/2009 8:18:49 AM
No number of windfarms will replace fossil fuels lorax, whats the point of building them if we still have to have coal running to back them up? Its a double whammy, pay for the coal and tax the emmisions if you like and then pay for the wind power too (which costs about 2-3 times coal) Better off to replace coal with gas, or nuclear and not worry about the cost of wind. Wind is only a feel good solution for wanna be greenies. Real greenies know it doesnt work!
Posted by andy, 24/12/2009 3:30:09 PM
Domestic energy is about 60% of total consumption and it is required 24/7. This is a time span that wind and solar cannot meet but geothermal might but we are 10 years behind with the technology. It would make more sense to create Green Energy Bonds guaranteed by the Government as security for the banks to underwrite the cost of solar to every home with roof arrays of solar panels or stand alone systems as a clear registered mortgage. Not only would it increase the inherent value of the property, but the sale of excess back into the grid could be the means of cost recovery. The subsequent sale of the property would be in two parts - the real estate and the energy unit. Is this a problem for the energy companies? Probably. but we cannot delay nuclear much longer nor the processing of uranium ore to the fuel stage while the world population will increase by 2.8 billion in around 40 years (U.N.) and energy demand 24% to 45% p.a. over that period. To phase out the mining of coal until a better use is found for it requires compensation to the shareholders instead of $billions to third world countries as "CO2 compensation" from the industrialised nations.
Posted by Robert Stewart, 26/12/2009 9:38:43 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
21 December, 2009
18 December, 2009
21 December, 2009
POLL
Q: What will be the centre piece of your Christmas feast?

Beef
(9.4%)

Lamb
(8%)

Ham
(26.2%)

Turkey
(20.8%)

Seafood
(18.1%)

Vegetarian
(7.8%)

Other
(9.6%)

Total Votes: 562
Poll Date: 18 December, 2009

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...