Looks like the means test will stay, eh?

Looks like the means test will stay, eh?

if you think that solar power rebates are a bad idea because solar power is expenive abatement, then you have missed the point.

What we know from the Stern review and other sources is that in order to avoid dangerous climate change we are going to need to minimise our carbon emissions, keeping CO2-e below 550ppm – Stern says that this in turn will require us to decarbonise our power supply by 60%, perhaps as much as 75%.

What this means is we will not be able to restrict ourself to a handful of sources of abatement technologies – we will need them ALL.

This includes solar power.In fact solar power will be a very important part of the equation. It is the most efficient means of converting the suns energy to a useable power source and it needs little extra land area as much of our generation capacity can be installed on our roofs.

While solar power is very expensive it is on a much steeper and earlier part of its learning curve than other technologies. In the EU it’s 60% cheaper today than it was in 1990, and the European Commission expects it to be a further 50% cheaper by 2020.

Investment that we spend now on increasing solar power deployment and driving learnings and economies of scale in our local markets now, is money well spent. We are driving prices down so that when we really need this tehnology rolled out on a massive scale, it will be a lot cheaper than it is today.

It doesn’t actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With the way the MRET and GreenPower work (and remember that Labor’s planning to keep the MRET, even after they put in their ETS), all putting solar panels on your roof does is mean that the power companies buy renewable energy certificates from you, rather than other renewable energy companies like wind power generators or biomass burners.

No net gain for the environment at all.

About the only justification that makes any sense at all is that it “helps to develop the solar industry” which is hoped that, some time, any time, in the future, will provide cost-effective energy.

Let’s just say I’m unconvinced that this will a) happen, and b) even if it does, whether this is the most sensible way to achieve it…

The subsidy could be related to the emissions saved and could be available no matter how the money was spent as long as it saved emissions. See http://rewards.edentiti.com/reduce-greenhouse-gases.html for how to implement such a system for less cost than administering a rebate program.

Also, think about this: My fiancée and I are in our mid 20s. We earn just under the 150k, so would get the baby bonus and don’t have to pay the Medicare surcharge on tax any longer. However, we earn over 100k so would not get the solar panel rebate. I think this will be a very common income band for couples of my age. Moreover, we’ll go over the 150 bracket in the next couple of years and lose eligibility for the baby bonus.

The government suggestion appears to be “have a baby now, increase the population, don’t worry about paying for the birth through private healthcare, we’ll cover it in the public system, one of you go part-time even though you both have productive professional jobs that require years of qualifications… but whatever you do don’t install some silly hippy solar panels on your roof”.

So STT, I do agree that there are better ways to spend money to reduce CO2 emissions. I just don’t see that this budget has them. I’d love to be proven wrong.

If it is a bad policy remove the policy. But if this is how environmental policy is going to be run in the future, it is a bad sign.

Having a couple of solar panels on a few houses is one of the most costly abatement mechanisms available. And if there is a price on CO2 emissions (which there will be soon enough), the case for these piece-meal approaches to emissions reduction is practically non-existent. Getting rid of these silly rebates was the highlight of the budget.

don’t you mean solar power systems? Solahart quotes all up installed costs (including rebates)
of $1500 to $5000 for a solar hot water system