Antinuclear

Australia needs Renewable Energy Target for financial reasons, as well as for jobs, and climate action

But one of the most important reasons for the RET has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions, nor the $20 billion of investment and 30,000 jobs it would secure in rural and regional Australia where most of our renewable resources are found.
It is the need to make sure we’ve got lots of renewable energy to call on in the future as we face the spiralling costs of fossil-fuelled electricity….

Let’s keep our power pants on, SMH, Kane Thornton, April 20, 2012 Suggesting we don’t need a Renewable Energy Target because we have a carbon price is like suggesting you don’t need pants because you have a jacket. Sure there’s a little overlap, but heading boldly into the world without your pants isn’t going to earn you any respect – particularly when just about everyone else is wearing them.
Over the last week, both the Business Council of Australia and the NSW Government have argued against our 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET). While the cost of renewable energy is falling quickly, the carbon price alone is not high enough to generate sufficient investment in renewable energy projects. That’s why we need the RET too. Each also has a role to play in reducing our carbon emissions.
Both sides of Australian politics understand the importance of the RET. It was established by Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, and Labor’s Kevin Rudd increased it to 20 per cent with the support of the Coalition and Greens in 2009. In recent weeks, both Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and his opposition counterpart, Greg Hunt, have
restated their support for the policy.
But one of the most important reasons for the RET has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions, nor the $20 billion of investment and 30,000 jobs it would secure in rural and regional Australia where most of our renewable resources are found.
It is the need to make sure we’ve got lots of renewable energy to call on in the future as we face the spiralling costs of fossil-fuelled electricity…..
High school economics will tell you that this demand for gas will
drive up costs. It already has. The wholesale price of gas has almost
doubled in the past year.
While gas power stations are currently cheaper to build than things
like wind and solar, the cost of renewable energy is coming down,
fast. The fuel cost of the wind and the sun is and will continue to be
free. As gas prices continue to rise, gas power plants will get
increasingly more expensive to run. Ignoring this fundamental contrast
is like buying a car without considering its fuel efficiency…..
Meanwhile, the story for coal isn’t much different to gas. Overseas
demand for coal, and therefore its cost, is going up. So what other
options are available to Australia? Nuclear? Or the suite of clean
energy technologies supported by more than 80 per cent of Australians
that might be a little more expensive today, but will pay off in
spades in years to come, whichever way you look at it.
The main reason Australia needs to ensure it has a thriving renewable
energy industry by retaining our RET is to address the rising the cost
of electricity. People calling for the RET to be dumped either don’t
understand basic energy economics or want to roll the dice and play a
nasty game of chance, which could end up with us losing our pants and
paying much higher energy prices in the future.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/lets-keep-our-power-pants-on-20120420-1xbgo.html#ixzz1siZmQ2xg

April 21, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy