Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Home loans made clear

Can we get to 90% renewable energy in 6 years???

By johnboy 4 November 2013 73

wind turbine

Simon Corbell has the terrifying news that he intends to drive the ACT economy to 90% renewable energy by the not-very-far-from-now date of 2020:

Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Simon Corbell, has today announced the formal establishment in law of a 90% renewable energy (electricity) target for the ACT to be achieved by 2020.

“The renewable energy target will see 90% of electricity used in the ACT in 2020 coming from renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind or biomass, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by around 1.5 million tonnes in that year” Mr Corbell said.

“The 90% renewable energy target was foreshadowed in the ACT climate change policy, AP2, and will underpin efforts to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Large-scale renewable energy projects announced to date include the FRV’s 20MW Royalla Solar Farm, Zhenfa’s 13MW Mugga Lane Solar Park and the 7MW OneSun Capital Solar Farm.

“These developments, subject to planning approval, will position the ACT as Australia’s Solar Capital and a national leader in solar innovation and investment.

While the removal of a carbon price will increase the cost of renewable energy to the ACT community this will be offset by recent technology and development cost reductions.

“We expect the cost of achieving the 90% renewable energy target to peak at around $5 per household per week in 2020. Even with this commitment to renewables Canberra is likely to maintain the lowest electricity prices in Australia.

One wonders where the huge biomass facility for still (non-windy) nights is going to go and what the neighbours will think of that…

[Photo by lamoix CC BY 2.0]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
73 Responses to
Can we get to 90% renewable energy in 6 years???
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Deref 5:11 pm 11 Nov 13

Why should the media give oxygen to the denialists? To be representative, they should get about 3% of the airspace but, against all common sense, they get a lot more than that.

I suppose it’s simply because the media sells papers/airspace/advertising by whipping up a “controversy” where there is none. It’s like the Christians in the US demanding (and getting) equal time for creationism.

I suspect that the climate change denialists and the creationists are probably the same people. They certainly have equal credibility.

laraeddy 2:03 pm 11 Nov 13

c_c™ said :

laraeddy said :

Roundhead89 said :

Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed. The letters editor of The Sydney Morning Herald regularly boasts about this policy and has told contributors not to bother writing if they don’t support climate change theory.

With all due respect, Roundhead89 – what piffle ! It took about three seconds to find this on a Fairfax site – http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-claims-are-exaggerated-john-howard-rejects-predictions-of-global-warming-catastrophe-20131106-2wzza.html. Scroll down, and the comments section is full of right-whinger rants about greeny-lefty climate conspiracy.

I can understand your frustration that the nonsense you promote is not being taken seriously – maybe it is just getting the acceptance it deserves. But please don’t compound the problem by telling such whoppers. Maybe stick with the Murdoch press – they run this conspiracy stuff almost constantly, and try getting a different view heard there !!

Different editors handle online and print at Fairfax, they’re run by different people. And adding the the complexity, the national times is run by a third editorial team. So quite possible they have three separate editorial policies.

Fair enough, c_c, but if anything that only further proves the point. If there is no consistent ‘Fairfax’ policy, how can it be that “Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed” ?

Hearing what you say, looked into it a bit more and found out that the editor of SMH says that the paper won’t print letters that assert things as facts when they are not – “(c)limate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts” (see http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/climate-change-a-note-from-our-letters-editors-20131021-2vvjd.html#ixzz2kIM5DrHD). I’m assuming that articles, as distinct from letters, have a stricter test applied, as they should.

Other parts of Fairfax also clearly set the bar lower, as per the link originally included. And that’s fair enough too – it’s good that there are things like comments pages – and RiotACT – to let people have a go. But it is kinda important for newspapers especially to try and separate out fact from fringe-dwelling ‘opinion’ or paranoid rants. It’s where the Murdoch press has failed us so spectacularly (IMHO).

And it is hardly the blanket exclusion claimed.

Obviously haven’t seen the letters Roundhead89 wanted published, but if the contribution here is anything to go by, I’d have thought the assertion that global warming is “house of cards” that “ended when Tony Abbott was elected” would miserably fail any reasonable test of sustainable fact.

The problem I see is that ‘poor me, I’m so oppressed by all those nasty lefties’ is a way of drumming up sympathy for a position that can’t be sustained on its merits. Which would be less of a problem if our world wasn’t getting stuffed up while we continue to entertain the nonsense.

Robertson 11:35 am 11 Nov 13

Diggety said :

Robertson said :

(last year’s emissions rose 1.6%)

And he finally admits it, thank you.

The elephant in the room being, why are you studiously ignoring the 25% *decrease* that has been achieved through Germany’s ‘Energiewende’?

Classic demonstration of denialism : ignore -25%, jump up and down about +1.6%

Diggety 10:59 am 11 Nov 13

Robertson said :

(last year’s emissions rose 1.6%)

And he finally admits it, thank you.

Robertson 10:57 am 11 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

My views on the climate change hoax are well-known blahblahblah The letters editor of The Sydney Morning Herald regularly boasts about this policy and has told contributors not to bother writing if they don’t support climate change theory.
.

You seem to have misunderstood what they are saying: they are not interested in publishing lies and nonsense.
If you are capable of supporting your bizarre belief with some actual facts, you will be published.
If you rely instead on lies and warped conspiracy theories, you will not be published.

Very simple.

Robertson 10:08 am 11 Nov 13

Diggety said :

Deref said :

Robertson said :

You said, “their emissions are rising”. This is a blatantly dishonest assertion.
Here is a picture, seeing as the words we have provided have failed to pierce your denial:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ger.html
As you can see, your statement is very, very wrong. And yet you cling to it. Because you are in denial.
(Projecting your denial onto me is also a symptom of denial).

Robertson has well-illustrated how Diggety’s post uses many of the techniques that denialists use to mislead the uninformed.

I’d you both have another look at the graph you’ve both relying on, then check the flipping date.

If you still want to bang on with the “Diggety’s a denier blah blah blah”, you’ll have to level the same charge to the following:

* The German Federal Environment Ministry
* The International Energy Agency
* European Environment Agency

But I suppose they’re all deniers too, right?

a/ You’re projecting again – the only denial here is coming from you.

b/ The graph we are referring to shows the big picture, it shows German emissions going back many years. It demonstrates that your “German emissions are rising” is an utter nonsense.
As Deref points out, you are using one of the standard tactics of denial:
– ignore the facts (German emissions have been reduced by 25%)
– quote one little factoid out of context (last year’s emissions rose 1.6%)
and this try to fool yourself that your statement is anything but completely incorrect.

c_c™ 4:29 pm 10 Nov 13

laraeddy said :

Roundhead89 said :

Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed. The letters editor of The Sydney Morning Herald regularly boasts about this policy and has told contributors not to bother writing if they don’t support climate change theory.

With all due respect, Roundhead69 – what piffle ! It took about three seconds to find this on a Fairfax site – http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-claims-are-exaggerated-john-howard-rejects-predictions-of-global-warming-catastrophe-20131106-2wzza.html. Scroll down, and the comments section is full of right-whinger rants about greeny-lefty climate conspiracy.

I can understand your frustration that the nonsense you promote is not being taken seriously – maybe it is just getting the acceptance it deserves. But please don’t compound the problem by telling such whoppers. Maybe stick with the Murdoch press – they run this conspiracy stuff almost constantly, and try getting a different view heard there !!

Different editors handle online and print at Fairfax, they’re run by different people. And adding the the complexity, the national times is run by a third editorial team. So quite possible they have three separate editorial policies.

Deref 2:16 pm 10 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

Climate change ended when Tony Abbott was elected. The gravy train is being loaded and fuelled.

I fixed that for you.

PantsMan 2:15 pm 10 Nov 13

Climate change is a socialist plot to deindustrialise the western world and introduce a One World Government.

laraeddy 1:04 pm 10 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed. The letters editor of The Sydney Morning Herald regularly boasts about this policy and has told contributors not to bother writing if they don’t support climate change theory.

With all due respect, Roundhead69 – what piffle ! It took about three seconds to find this on a Fairfax site – http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-claims-are-exaggerated-john-howard-rejects-predictions-of-global-warming-catastrophe-20131106-2wzza.html. Scroll down, and the comments section is full of right-whinger rants about greeny-lefty climate conspiracy.

I can understand your frustration that the nonsense you promote is not being taken seriously – maybe it is just getting the acceptance it deserves. But please don’t compound the problem by telling such whoppers. Maybe stick with the Murdoch press – they run this conspiracy stuff almost constantly, and try getting a different view heard there !!

Diggety 12:46 pm 10 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

Climate change ended when Tony Abbott was elected. The gravy train has been derailed.

Care to explain Direct Action then?

Most reports suggest this will be even more expensive than the Green/Labor policy.

Roundhead89 said :

…let’s forget about so-called renewable energy and get back to our good old reliable cheap energy.

We never really left. We have one of the highest proportions of fossil-fuel use, and the highest emissions intensity (/kWh) in the world.

Deref 8:47 am 10 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed.

You and your ilk are not sceptics and you insult those of us who are by assuming the mantle.

Scepticism involves rigorous examination of the evidence before coming to a conclusion and a willingness – eagerness, in fact – to change your mind in the light of fresh evidence.

You could be many things – a shill for the fossil fuel industry; a shock jock who benefits by engendering a phony debate where there is none or someone who gets their “information” from such without having the intelligence, capacity or motivation to examine the evidence; motivated by some strange religious belief/s; or something else.

But a sceptic? Not in a million years.

Roundhead89 1:26 am 10 Nov 13

My views on the climate change hoax are well-known but let’s be thankful we can express them here. Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed. The letters editor of The Sydney Morning Herald regularly boasts about this policy and has told contributors not to bother writing if they don’t support climate change theory.

I have been writing letters to the editor since 1972 when I wrote to the SMH about the Watergate affair. Over the years I have had many letters published about many subjects but I’ve never come across a subject such as this climate change thing where it is impossible to get a letter printed. It is almost as if the Left fear climate change sceptics because the house of cards the Left has built around climate change is rapidly falling down and if the truth is printed the game will finally be up.

Climate change ended when Tony Abbott was elected. The gravy train has been derailed. It is ridiculous for our Green Left government in the ACT to keep trying to breathe life into this rotting corpse. We have enough brown coal to last 500 years so let’s forget about so-called renewable energy and get back to our good old reliable cheap energy.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site