No, that's not the issue Suhit. That's an important and related issue on a broader scale but has no bearing on the immediate economic, social and political effects of slashing an industry support scheme by two thirds overnight with no prior warning.
Our state government is very ready to support all kinds of other industries, such as the racing and gaming industry, that have no net positive benefit and significant detrimental social impacts. It has no problem sinking hundreds of millions of dollars of support into easily the most inefficient and environmentally harmful energy generation industry we could have in NSW short of burning old car tyres to generate electricity. The NSW government's decision had nothing to do with deciding that household solar was the wrong strategy, or they would have axed the feed-in tariff. It was just frantic, poorly-thought through, panicked decision-making-on-the-run from a party desperately trying not to lose an upcoming election and unable to risk any bad publicity over cost blowouts on a solar scheme that's grown too fast. If they weren't scared and they actually did give a damn they could have just as easily announced that the tariff would be phased down gradually from 60 to 20 over the next four years. Installers could have used those four years to adapt, to do some consolidation and acquisitions, to get more efficient. Manufacturers could have used that time to continue to bring costs down and optimised supply chains. Consumers could have decided for themselves whether to act sooner or later with the full information at hand. There would be time for consultation, for accurate modelling of the impacts and the results, for further tweaks to be made. It's the home insulation scheme all over again, thankfully without any fatalities but all the other collateral damage. No solar manufacturer is ever going to risk entering the NSW market for a very long time, and no investor is gojng to get into backing manufacture, distribution or sale of household solar either. One thing's for sure, household solar generation better NOT be the best solution for the state of NSW's future power needs, because the current state government has made damn sure it will not be an option ever again. On Oct 28, 8:40 pm, Suhit Anantula <anant...@gmail.com> wrote: > The issue is whether this is the best subsidy to support alternative energy. > Not sure if it is? Solar energy is the key for the future but not on homes of > people. That looks like a very inefficient way of doing things. > > On 28/10/2010, at 2:02 PM, alan jones wrote: > > > > > I'm still so angry about this decision I don't know where to begin. > > > What an insane way to both announce and introduce new pricing policy. > > Cuba could have done it better. My brother sells and installs solar > > panels and he's probably just lost his job. And NSW just lost a chance > > to gradually start weaning itself off coal-fired generation. > > > F*ckwits. > > > On Oct 27, 7:14 pm, "rgh....@gmail.com" <rgh....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Today the NSW Premier announced an effective of cancelling the NSW > >> solar energy > >> market.http://www.premier.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/101027-Solar-Bonus-... > > >> It reduced the solar Feed-in-Tariff from $0.60 to $0.20. This decision > >> has probably cost up to 5,000 jobs and up to $4 billion in investment > >> in NSW. > > >> I work with various community housing groups and we have cancelled > >> over $100 million in new affordable housing projects which was to be > >> financed through an innovative funding model. > > >> Of course, I am bias I as I am directly effected but no where else in > >> the world has changed their renewable energy policy so dramatically. > >> In Europe, most governments have reduced the prices from the Feed-in- > >> tariff as the price of solar equipment has reduced. > > >> Small NSW companies will reduce their employees while larger companies > >> will simply focus upon ACT, SA and Qld or overseas. > > >> According to the Premier, NSW would have installed 1,000MW (1GW) by > >> 2016 if the program continued to the current rate. That would have > >> generated over 1,400GWh per annum compared to current Australian > >> electricity production of 239,900GWh. > > >> It would probably have saved up to $1 Billion is network upgrades and > >> combined with energy efficiency might even have reduced the need to > >> create a new coal-fired electricity generator. > > >> Richard Hayes > >> Carbon Free Solutions > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach > > Australia mailing list. > > > Guidelines on discussion:http://tr.im/ujKF > > > No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself:http://tr.im/ujMm > > > To post to this group, send email to > > silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Guidelines on discussion: http://tr.im/ujKF No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself: http://tr.im/ujMm To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
