There is much truth to that. Many greenies always had a healthy skepticism about biofuels and this is reflected in Greens policy.

“The broader green movement” are pushing for renewables like solar thermal, geothermal, wind, etc. and modal shift in transport rather than biofuels and more roads.

What about the laws of common sense? Coal fired power stations will be with us for at least the next 50-75 years and probably much, much longer. China alone builds a new coal fired power station every week. Without CO2 geosequestration or something similar, atmospheric CO2 levels will not be brought under control.

The MRET is not a subsidy, its a target; and one they Labor and scuccessive Australian Governments may not reach. It provides no immediate incentives to boost clean energy projduction, as the solar rebate (would have, (pre means test).

Then there is the question about how an MRET is acheived - solar and renewable energy rebates can assist with this. In particular they assist poeople to take their own local action, rather than just waiting for power companies and governments to get their act together.

Its a false dichotomy to say that an MRET is antagonistic to energy efficiency measures. We need increased efficiency, much more clean energy and transition measures such as subsituting natural gas for coal. They are complementary, not antagonistic. Greater efficieny makes the MRET easier to acheive.

The basic test to apply is that any measure must reduce emissions. If it does, then it is worth doing.

Legislation on its own doesn´t necessarily mean that renewable energy will thrive. Market forces and incentives apply, and fossil fuels enjoy massive subsidies which make clean energy sources less financially attractive. If these subsidies were removed and a carbon tax applied, then solar and wind would be cost neutral or advantageous compared to coal and oil.

This isn´t about ¨Bob Brown and the rest of the Greens¨ - playing politics on this issue is not constructive.

I would argue that the ¨biofuels blow up”you refer to was not actually driven by the broader green movement. Rather, it has been driven by opportunistic commercial interests in a similar fashion to how the fossil fuel lobby is hijacking government (our) money to pretend that coal can somehow be made clean (against the laws of physics).

Agricultural lobbies (such as corn in the US and sugar cane in Australia) have jumped on the bandwagon claiming that ethanol is a good biofuel - when clearly it is not. They consume more fossil fuel energy to produce it than the ethanol energy they deliver. Politicians just jump on the bandwagon and pick up political donations.

The MRET means that enormous amounts of renewable capacity is going to have to be built over the next decade in Australia, and possibly to the detriment of cheaper measures like switching from coal to gas, or energy efficiency.

If the policy doesn’t change, at least one, and probably more, renewable energy types has to thrive in Australia - no matter what their premium over fossil fuels. It’s legislatively required that they thrive.

If solar still can’t compete under those circumstances, why the hell should we throw additional money at it - unless you’re Bob Brown and the rest of the Greens and you reckon you know better than the market which technologies are likely to succeed and which aren’t. Now, that’s an intellectually consistent view, but I reckon they’re flat wrong, as has been demonstrated by biofuels blowing up in the broader green movement’s face.

Its pretty concerning that Gillard has stated that it would be “making an assumption” to suggest that power and petrol prices would go up with the introduction of a carbon trading scheme. If they don’t go up its going to remain very difficult for any renewable energy sources to become competitive.

But, frankly, why should we do anything for the solar PV industry? If it can’t compete with wind, geothermal, solar thermal and the other renewables out there, why can’t it just be left to die on its lack of merit as a cost-effective option for reducing emissions?

The changes haven’t killed the industry; its just slowed down slightly and stopped some cowboy operators trying to make a quick buck.

A combined approach is needed to build the solar industry. We need the rebate program to establish the industry. We need feed in tarrifs to encourage investors to take up solar, bringing the cost down. We need a MRET to force heavy energy users to install large solar plants.

I have been a bit disappointed with this government, but I still have hope they will come up with something benificial for the solar industry and environment.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/csiro-to-slash-jobs-and-research/2008/05/21/1211182895811.html

“CSIRO to slash jobs and research:
AUSTRALIAN research giant the CSIRO has been forced to slash about 100 jobs and close two laboratories after large funding cuts in last week’s federal budget.”

Oh god, another 10 years of rubbish Government.

Brian - what I don’t understand is why desal is being done before water recycling - other than the ick factor.

Chris, it isn’t. I don’t know the exact details, but I think we are getting some recycling already, but perhaps only to industry. I know there are places where industry can buy secondhand water and I know that the Mt Coot-tha Botanical gardens uses water that’s saved from testing fire hydrants. But we are going to have a pipeline from the sewage outfall at Luggage Point all the way up the river to Bundamba (Ipswich). I think there are plans for other collection facilities also. Beattie decided not to go to referendum and the Brisbane people aren’t revolting.

They did in Toowoomba, of course. But now they are going to be rescued by a pipeline up the range from the Wivenhoe dam, which I heard is the biggest water lift for urban supply in the world, and about 70km. Lots of greenhouse there.

The recycled water will be purified at Bundamba, then pumped into the Wivehoe (about 70km), where it will gain a bit of flavour from dead animal carcasses, cow shit etc before being treated again for consumption. The desal at Tugun will also go to Wivenhoe if the Gold Coast don’t need it, I think, about 170km or it’s about 100km to Brisbane.

Traveston is about 150km from Brisbane.

All this on coal powered electricity. Not good.

I don’t know whether you folks in Melbourne realise what being short of water means. We haven’t been allowed to wash bird shit off our cars for over a year.

Brian - what I don’t understand is why desal is being done before water recycling - other than the ick factor.

OK - I don’t understand the degree of seriousness in WA and Qld with water. That’s true.

So let me back off and confine and reduce my point to Melbourne only. We, down here, are being highly counter-productive by burning coal to produce water. We haven’t even begun to implement a myriad of water saving, recycling and reduction opportunities.

We still blithely trumpet that we will overtake Sydney’s population by 2030 as some sort of badge of honour. It’s a sign of pig-headedness.

Burning coal produced the climate change we now fear may permanently reduce our rainfall. Burning more coal to get around that fact is madness. (While the situation is not yet as dire as may be in SE Qld and Perth. To be clear, I would countenance desal if it was required to sustain millions of people’s living conditions.)

But if I was just looking at it from a financial standpoint, it’s not a good investment. Why? Well, it pays me about a 5% tax free return on my investment, but I’ve also taken substantial risk; I have holes in my roof where they mounted the panels, the inverter on the solar panels went out for two months, luckily it was still under warranty but if were not it would have been a $1,000 expense.

But anyway, forgetting all that for the moment, the payback on those solar panels, assuming no cost of capital, is about 19 years at current electric rates. Without the city subsidy it would be closer to 58 years for the payback on those solar panels.

wbb, that link you gave at 87 was to an outfit called Premier Coal. I really can’t take it as definite information until I get it from a more disinterested source.

I’d accept, though, that the renewable energy portion in WA is not large. Your additional point at 88 is that we shouldn’t be wasting money on desal for water.

Desal is wrong. Climate change is the issue; water must be dealt with by conservation (or engineering as Robert M says) until we have non-polluting energy capacity to spare.

I don’t know whether you folks in Melbourne realise what being short of water means. We haven’t been allowed to wash bird shit off our cars for over a year.

From about 1970 the area around Perth suffered a 30% decline in rainfall and about a 70% decline in runoff.(That’s ball park, don’t quote me.) Since 2000 the story has been similar around Brisbane. We don’t know whether it’s a drought or whether it’s the new dispensation. Last year around this time we had 16.75% in the dams with the water going down by about 0.035% every day. At that rate we would have been down to around 5% by mid this year. That’s effectively empty.

The State Government called tenders for Armageddon. Some of the ideas included towing giant bladders of water down from N Qld and shipping water in by tanker from New Zealand. The Water Commission reckon that with the Tugun desal plant in place, recycling and the water grid if they get to 60% (we’re at 37.25% now) they can guarantee us continuity of water. But that’s with the Traveston Dam which will gut 12% of Australia’s dairying country, endanger four iconic species, endanger the Hervey Bay environment etc. Frankly I’d rather they built another desal plant or two, but with renewable energy. Otherwise we’ll have to send some of the Mexicans back south.

Anyway, it got me annoyed enough on RN this morning to get me out of bed, so it wasn’t all bad.