News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Carbon tax only a good start: report 

Carbon tax only a good start: report

06 Feb, 2012 07:03 AM
A CARBON price alone will not be enough for Australia to meet its target of a dramatic cut in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, an analysis by the Grattan Institute has found.

In a report published today the institute says extra policies will be needed if clean-energy technologies are to develop to a point where they can replace fossil fuel-generated power on a major scale.

The report analyses the potential of seven clean-energy technologies: wind, solar photovoltaic panels, large-scale concentrated solar power, geothermal, carbon capture and storage, nuclear and bio-energy.

The report says it is possible none will produce power at a similar cost to that paid today. "In other words, existing policies will not on their own produce the transformation we need," it says. "The carbon pricing scheme, while a good start, is not enough."

The institute found that wind and solar photovoltaic energy — the most developed clean technologies — would not meet more than half Australia's power needs unless it became viable to store the energy they generated. The commercial viability of storage technologies was uncertain. Carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy were assessed as being unlikely in Australia in the near future unless governments paid for most of the material risk.

Labor's carbon price scheme begins on July 1, at a price of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. The government has also promised a $10 billion clean energy finance corporation, due to start in 2013-14, and Australia has a target of 20 per cent of energy coming from renewable sources by 2020.

But the Grattan Institute found government was responsible for several barriers preventing the development of clean-energy technology. They could be removed by changing the rules governing the electricity network, improving mapping of solar and geological resources and giving potential investors greater certainty by releasing annual emissions limits for well into the future.

The institute found it was justified for governments to offer some support for research and development and early roll-out of some technologies, but that any intervention should not compromise central policies such as carbon pricing.

Reductions of existing subsidies to fossil fuels at both a federal and state level — ranging between $8 and $9.3 billion a year on some estimates — was also recommended.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott this week will argue that real wages will fall under a carbon tax.

On the basis of analysing government statistics, he will say the carbon tax is expected to cause real wages to be almost 1 per cent lower than they would otherwise be by 2020. For someone on current average adult full-time wages of about $70,000 this would be equivalent to a cut in salary of about $600 a year.

Treasury's estimate of the impact of the tax on real wages rises to almost 6 per cent by 2050 — equivalent in current terms to an annual pay cut of about $4000 a year for a person on average full-time wages.

The Coalition will argue that the carbon tax will cause a large and growing fall in GDP, with a cumulative loss of output being $32 billion in today's dollars by 2020 and $1 trillion by 2050.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Put whatever price you like on carbon nothing will change the amount produced until viable alternatives are available for companies to turn to.

All new electricity generators will need to be base load generators otherwise they will just add to the cost of electricity.

Posted by daw, 6/02/2012 10:19:41 AM
This stuff was conceived by idiots, designed by idiots, implemented by idiots and supplied to idiots. By my rough estimate about a third of all rooftop solar systems don't even point north. They just slap them down on whatever slope is available and they rarely include the additional structural work that would give the panels the optimum inclination.

But what this (tee hee) "report" confirms is that these climate nutters have hardly begun to bleed the economy at the levels they want to.

Human sacrifices anyone?

Posted by Ian Mott, 6/02/2012 11:20:31 AM
Daw, Actually you are incorrect. Baseload Solar Thermal plants already exist and are operating in Spain and being built in the Middle East, Europe and North Africa.

They are molten salt power towers, with huge tanks of molten salt that act like giant batteries.

We actually need intermediate and peaking, while baseload has not grown since 2007. So your analysis is just plain wrong there.

Posted by Matthew Wright, 7/02/2012 6:38:00 AM
Australia has massive coal reserves which has given us an advantage over other manufacturing countries.

Countries that don't have these natural resources, naturally need to have some alternate ways to generate power.

Even if you believe the carbon doom peddlars,Aust would be better off spending money now wasted on subsidising solar and wind power, on finding cleaner coal burning technology.

Posted by R, 7/02/2012 9:25:24 AM
R. refers to "carbon doom peddlars" as a matter of belief.

He/she should have a look at the actual science. It's easily available, and has nothing to do with "belief". A start is at NOAA's State of the Climate Report, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/12

As for clean coal, QCAT are doing good research - but affordable power is a long way off. See: http://www.cat.csiro.au/coal.html


Posted by nico, 7/02/2012 10:09:49 AM
The carbon tax is already driving jobs offshore, and it hasn't even started yet.

The carbon tax will be repealed after the next election, but is doing terrible damage in the meantime. Those who think they can beat this can blame none but themselves when they lose.

All for bogus science driven by crooked politicians.

Posted by Ted O'Brien, 7/02/2012 12:54:31 PM
Matthew, No I'm not As I said above new generation needs to be base load. I didn't mention various types of generation.

This concept of salt heat storage is the newest development and if it proves to be capable of supplying power at anytime then it qualifies. Photovoltaic doesn't nor does Wind.

Talking 'baseload' really means being available 24/7. The more hours in the day it runs the closer to max efficiency it will be.

Whilst maximim demand hasn't increased much in recent times it will increase and there is ever diminishing reserves particularly at peak times.

Remember 1984?

Posted by daw, 7/02/2012 1:00:18 PM
Now nico would have us believe that these "state of the climate/environment reports" are based on science. Yeah, right, and Al gore is an honest man who wouldn't dream of exaggerating.

These reports are so corrupted by ideology that one will rarely find any mention of a beneficial outcome from any topic they discuss.

They incorporate the miniscule warming effect of CO2 on the reflected radiation from clouds over the oceans but fail to recognise the much greater warming effect when there are no clouds and the ocean absorbs 96% of all insolation. Gonzo stuff.

Posted by Ian Mott, 7/02/2012 1:38:50 PM
Nicco one thing is very obvious , you are oblivious to the actual science and your science is frisby science. Political spin.
Posted by Loc Hey, 7/02/2012 4:16:48 PM
If it is a question of understanding climate science, I'll put my money on NASA and NOAA and the various academies, et al, ahead of the laughably unqualified Mott.

As scientific institutions, they are inclusive, looking at all the evidence, and testing the theory against the reality. Ideology doesn't enter into it.

And they have better manners.

Posted by nico, 7/02/2012 4:31:27 PM
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

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.



 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...