Labor Blog

    Connecting Renewable Energy to the Grid

    Penny Wong posted Friday, 23 July 2010

    Did you know on an average day, enough sunshine falls on Australia and New Zealand to power both countries for 25 years?  

    While it’s amazing to think of the opportunities we have to harness the sun, let alone wind and geothermal resources, there are still many technical and economic challenges in the way. 
     
    A key barrier to planning for more renewable energy is the fact many of our richest resources are in remote regions not connected to major energy networks. 
     
    Today’s announcement, Connecting Renewables, is about providing a solution to this piece of the renewable energy puzzle. 
     
    Over the next decade, Connecting Renewables will invest $1 billion to transform our electricity networks and better connect our rich remote renewable resources to households and businesses. 
     
    This investment is necessary to help us to make the most of our rich renewable energy endowments and enable us to deliver renewable energy on the scale and speed that we need.  
     
    It will also help spur us towards the goal Federal Labor set last year to derive 20 per cent of our electricity supply from renewable resources by 2020. 
     
    The construction of supporting infrastructure will help lower the barriers to entry for generators who want to use renewable technology, whilst also helping us better plan for our future energy requirements. 
     
    With 35 per cent of Australia’s carbon emissions coming from electricity generation, this will play a key part in tackling Australia’s contribution to climate change. 
     
    An example of the type of infrastructure projects that could receive support under the program are solar projects in North West Western Australia, or in helping develop North West Queensland to open up opportunities in the resource rich region.  
     
    This builds on the Government’s existing $10 billion commitment on energy efficiency, renewable and other clean energy, including the $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program. 
     
    We don’t want to go back to the days under the Coalition where renewable energy went backwards – going from 10.5 per cent of the National Electricity supply in 1997 to 9.5 per cent a decade later. 
     
    Federal Labor has a real plan for renewable energy in this country and Julia Gillard is committed to building a sustainable Australia. 
     
    I hope you can follow the discussion and post your views on this blog.
     
    Tags: Change, Climate, Connecting, Penny, Renewables, Wong
+ View all

45 Comments

  • Nikkojii from Warrandyte , Victoria Sunday, 27 February 2011, 19:27

    @ Sangerer and Aussiepom - you guys obviously know each other and you obviousy know more about energy generation than the rest of us put together so PLEASE! start talking in words people like me can understand.

    What are these alternatives that you're both talking about? I've heard of Blue Gen - even rang them once but was told they wouldn't be going commercial for a while yet. What are these other ways of creating decentralised power? As an ordinary homeowner I /want/ to generate my own power. Distributed processing works in computing and should work in other networks as well.

    Please more info!

  • EnergyDay from Gisborne , Victoria Monday, 29 November 2010, 02:29

    As a supplier of renewable energy products it is clear that the cost of renewable energy is now comparable to the price of grid connect power. Certainly for some remote customers they can now get electricity cheaper than grid connect power. Renewable energy investment is on the increase all around Australia http://www.windweathersolar.com/Rebates/Queensland/QueenlandRenewableEnergyNews.aspx as one of many examples. However, with all of the money being invested I would like to see a firmer commitment for the money to be shared between big industry, existing power companies, new power companies and especially for small residential customers. We need a firmer roadmap and less committee meetings.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Monday, 16 August 2010, 06:16

    What about algae consuming CO2 on the other side of the Coal burn? That possible?

  • aussepom from frankston , Victoria Friday, 13 August 2010, 17:13

    Hi There is no such thing as clean coal, coal fired power stations are at only 28% eff now, so the more you do to 'clean it up' to burn this drops even further, even now by the time it get to your house it is down to 23%. I do have a solution, the project is to be re started with the prototype. we would be able to keep the infrastructure that is there, and leave the coal in the ground. the solution would not be using Gas either. The eff of the station would increase to over 60% , zero emission's. This process is already know by the power companies but they will not acknowledge it. It is also know by Greg Hunt, and the CSIRO. The other project is coming along well and is on target, this will also take all the houses off the grid, this will release, more energy for the commercial industry, home owner will not pay a cent for power, but will get paid in carbon credits if it is ever brought into being. Cars will also benefit from the technology later, however the heavy trucks is another problem.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Wednesday, 11 August 2010, 21:11

    The ETS and a strategic direct nudge for clean coal and solar panels would be the way I would go.

  • sangerer from Albert Park , Victoria Wednesday, 11 August 2010, 16:11

    I am still not sure where this discussion is heading. Whether or we acknowledge Climate Change is basically not even relevant. Most of us in the field moved on a few years ago. The assumption is that the continuation of a fossil fuel based society is neither sustainable nor acceptable in the long term. The real discussion is about how to manage the transition from a carbon based economy to a non-carbon based economy. It is sad to see that the whole big notion of Climate Change brings all the nut bags out of the cupboards. I am not disputing science, nor am I arguing against it. The real political issues are about how to change manage the transition. Let me put this into perspective. --- 1.) The White Paper on National Energy security has not been published since it would cause enormous issues in this election. Why is this so? For one thing, Australian oil reserves are likely to run out by 2020. This means that Australia will import 100% of its oil from overseas. This will have an enormous impact on the Australian economy. It means that we have to develop shale and bio-fuel facilities to manage the transition to electric, gas, hydrogen etc cars and trucks in ten years. We also have to reserve oil reserves for the military and aviation.--- At present we send most of our Gas reserves overseas. Yet we need the gas to run high efficiency electricity generators, heat homes and even run blue-gen gas distributed energy generation systems in Australia’s homes and suburbs. Since Penny Wong categorically refuses to include High efficiency Gas systems in a national feed in tariff ( see her parliamentary comments) and since we as a nation have not managed to get our heads around the fact that we need to conserve our vital national resources if Australia is to avoid becoming a plundered third world backwater; the current policy hiatus will continue to make Australia a world laughing stock. The Climate Change debate is not about an artificially set carbon price, or even an ETS. This is a stock market and large corporate ploy to deliver another stock market gambling system that will only help the super rich. Sure enough a market defined World Carbon price will help with assisting economists to calculate the true economic cost of pollution and the loss of national resource assets, but it is not critical in fixing the problem. However, you can achieve the same results with an EPS ( Environmental Protection System ) regulatory framework that is combined with a CARBON BOND investment incentive scheme that would actually prove budget neutral and ensure that heavy polluters re-invest in energy efficiency and carbon reduction schemes at an investment rate marginally above the government bond rate in the country where the pollution is created. I woudl probably rename the department of Climate Change to the Department of environmental infrastructure and sustainability and put the Department of Environmental Protection udner its care. Thsi well help in focusing the debate. --- In addition, the 2006 COAG initiative to deliver Third Party access to the Gas, Water, Communication, Electricity Grids etc, would have enormous benefits in dealing with anti-trust, consumer protection, consumer price stabilization and equity, national security and a raft of other matters that are stopping national infrastructure and Green Tech industry development. -- Then we have to consider that the Water Policy addressing the Murray Darling, storm and waste water as well as desalination and the use of grey water has not been published. Once again, Industry is waiting and investment is held up. -- Then there is the entire issue of green buildings and green suburbs and the need for uniform national minimum urban and regional planning guidelines that allow the development of independent community owned and operated distributed energy efficiency, water and waste management projects to be directly integrated into communities. The DC Micro-grid has stalled as a consequence. The fact that the 2000 and 2001 revised Renewable Energy Act classifies a 10 kw wind turbine and a 100kw as a Power station is not only making Australia look like a laughing stock globally, it even hinders the training of Green Tech workers, the development of international certification and standards recognition. I should know because I am working with Renewable UK and the Euro-Skills Board on this precise issue! My European and US partners and associates consider Australia to be a backwater and in legislative lala land because the country does not even have a uniform, indexed, capped and comprehensive National Feed In Tariff system that underpins all renewable and all energy efficiency options any smart country must consider in managing its transition from fossil fuel dependence towards a high value Clean Tech economy. Australian politicians and the community as a whole have been distracted by a fear campaign on Climate Change, a solar centric policy that does not take into account real value for money and long term sustainability and other issues. This nonsense must stop. Real action is not going to be delivered by the Libs. I am wondering whether the lack of focus on the real issues will ensure that Australia will continue to dither and procrastinate. What do you think?

  • aussepom from frankston , Victoria Friday, 6 August 2010, 23:06

    Hi reboot it seems that you are monopolising this blog, and so long winded just stick to the point, and this article, you try and get on the opposition blog.

  • aussepom from frankston , Victoria Thursday, 5 August 2010, 15:05

    Hi Well Penny It is a pity that Greg H was not able to tell you of thing that may soon be a reality, he must have been biting his tongue for what he knows, Penny was not interested, how could she not be interested in Zero emissions from power station! Or for that matter the Victorian State Government, both were given the chance for this new technology. Now this is for DaryIS and Reboot, and I hope that you agree Sangerer, in front of several witnesses three were investors one a Tech saw for them selves a Mag Motor alternator achieve a COP of 2.4 and this was only the test rig. It’s main purpose is to supply 15kW for the home owners and not to feed the grid to help these money grabbing private power suppliers, and to get the government out of the hole that they are in due to the privatisation of the power industry. This was all brought about by the chamber of commerce and the Victorian Project. Soon electric cars will benefit from this power generation. aussepom

  • gingerburnett from Walsh Bay , NSW Saturday, 31 July 2010, 09:31

    Penny, you are AWESOME. On Q and A last Monday night you held your own under extreme pressure, as hard as it is, please don't give up, we need you, I too feel your frustration with short sighted, greedy egoists. Thanks also to Richo for defending you. On the Australian Conservation Foundation site an interesting observation...that if we put our minds to it we could be operating on 100% on renewable energy sources in 10 years time. I ask the question...WHY NOT?? Why rely on dirty and dangerous energy sources if we don't need to? In this age of terrorism centralist power stations and especially nuclear power stations are an obvious target where renewables are not concentrated in one site.

  • spacek from Redfern , NSW Saturday, 31 July 2010, 03:31

    Hope the miners' ads start soon. That will certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons.

  • spacek from Redfern , NSW Saturday, 31 July 2010, 03:31

    Additionally, good on Richo for sticking up for you. No-one else had the guts to.

  • spacek from Redfern , NSW Saturday, 31 July 2010, 03:31

    Firstly, harvest water -- it has been raining on the Central Coast nightly for weeks, put solar panels everywhere and windfarms. It is totally illogical to not harvest rainwater -- what about a national pipeline? It is always said it is too expensive, but we can house refugees who are against our national interests and send two billion dollars to Indonesia annually -- a nation full of Muslims. Penny, you were placed in a very awkward position on Q and A last Monday night that you didn't deserve. You handled it with dignity where many people would have walked out. They should screen the questions.

  • DarylS from Darling Heights , Qld Wednesday, 28 July 2010, 21:28

    reboot, you proved my point that neither logic nor facts would avail. Incidentally I'm not a "blinkered rusted on ALP Supporter and Climate Change alarmist", but a well educated sceptical swinging voter who is anything but ignorant. Go in peace and believe your conspiracies, but please don't be rude and insulting to the other 95% of us.

  • sangerer from Albert Park , Victoria Tuesday, 27 July 2010, 00:27

    OK HQ! I think this one is well and truely cooked. How about we now get a yes / no button for anyone who can't answer a question.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Monday, 26 July 2010, 21:26

    Reboot, imagine a world where there were 100 new ideas like biochar getting a run, not because the proponent had mates in Canberra, but because they had the innovative spirit of Teslar? [and by the looks yourself, DarrylS, and assepom]. That is what the ETS represents - doesn't it?

  • DarylS from Darling Heights , Qld Monday, 26 July 2010, 20:26

    reboot, I'll comment just this once & cease as I can't see that logic will convince you & don't want to get into an argument. Anything that is in excess can be a pollutant or ecology spoiler including water and oxygen. CO2 is indeed respired and natural but the current problem is that the carbon that was locked up in fossil fuels over 100s of millions of years is being released in decades. Will it destroy all life? No, but it will alter our climate and there will be winners and losers. Unfortunately it appears that humans will lose somewhat out of this, and the east coast of Australia will have its already uncertain rainfall reduced. I'm not a fan of carbon sequestering, but believe we should try and reduce our CO2 output by a variety of means. On an other matter, the conspiracy theories involving secret cabals of faceless puppet masters who inhibit and block new technology are so nonsensical that only a very few paranoid individuals ignore all facts and logic to believe them. A bit of research beyond googling will show you that the "eminent scientists" who challenge climate change are the very same individuals who have been hired by the tobacco companies to challenge the health risks of smoking, and the oils companies to try and get out of trouble after major spills. Discredited guns for hire.

  • Renkay from Croydon , NSW Monday, 26 July 2010, 16:26

    When the citizen's assembly was announced by Julia Gillard and explained, it sounded like a really good idea to me. People are so quick to judge this policy and demand action when perhaps the wisest move is first get the majority of people on side through detailed education and discussion and iron out the mis-conceptions. People are so divided on this issue we need something to help people understand the truth.

  • ziggy65 from parkwood , wa Monday, 26 July 2010, 11:26

    Let's hope the election comes soon because the policies are getting weaker and weaker - really a peoples assembly ? What do we pay you lot for ? If as it seems we intend being fellow travellers with China, the US and India and only policy pay lip service to climate change maybe we should be asking what are your policies going to be to deal with the effects of climate change ? If temperatures are going to rise what are you going to do about it ? I know business and organisatioons like water authorities are making plans based on temperature increases, so what is our government doing ? Also, what ever happened to the issue of energy security ? The US cap and trade bill included a lot on energy independence and security, is this not an issue for Australia ?

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Monday, 26 July 2010, 07:26

    Reboot, the ETS still means we can use coal we just have to pull the CO2 out. I mean, you would not have a problem if we still used coal and oil but just did something with the CO2 - would you?

  • andIVote from Merewether Heights , NSW Sunday, 25 July 2010, 10:25

    Arrghhhh... I know that Julia and Penny are a FAR FAR better choice to bring the policies that action on Climate Change requires, but really.... the cash for clunkers is a infinitesimally small return on investment. It will simply transfer $ through the market in asset values, dealer margins and BANKS who'll just love the return on unaffordable loans to low income punters grabbing the opportunity to trade the 1994 corolla on a 2011 whatever.. There are life cycle considerations in embodied energy in cars (what energy went into making them as well as what operating emissions they generate), what their usage patterns are etc).. that DON'T necessarily mean replacing them is a green option. There are so many other ways to effect better emissions savings and return value to taxpayers.. A gym membership and a bicycle would be better value! What about "we will pay for solar hot water systems on EVERY Public building and Public Housing property (where it is technically feasible) that currently has an electric hot water service AND, will provide the same to all freestanding private residential rental properties which meet the same criteria." This will benefit low income households AND cut the electricity bills of the residential tenants by about 1/3 or ca. $350/year. It also provides security against cumulative impact of rising power prices on low income households relying on inefficient appliances.. We should roll out the system using competitive tender processes and Australian content requirements as well of course as appropriate certification and due diligence.. The green buildings retrofit is good policy but needs to be run with smart grid and efficiency options.. WE use way way too much power in our workplaces because of A/C overkills, hurricane like ventilation flows and lazy management. WE should only fund initiatives that help, with management, to cut total power use and ensure that we NEVER need to build capacity with more coal powered utility!! Carbon Capture & Storage are furphies to avoid action on Climate Change and preserve share prices and markets until it's all too late! Even the Great President Bartlett (West Wing :-)) knew that 10 years ago! Let's get off the roundabout, stop pulling funds from solar to fund banks and automotive folly and MOVE Forward! PS Q&A should be a hoot tomorrow night - just don't know whether we'll get Penny and Senator Milne to realise that THEY MUST be on the same side.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Sunday, 25 July 2010, 08:25

    DavidEgan it seems hard to argue for that kind of commoditised type infrastructure to be chopped up with legally enforceable [in the hands of a few] gates able to be shut in the face of the many. Commercial mononpolies rarely operate with low risk of result failure.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Sunday, 25 July 2010, 08:25

    restivo46 it would have been fascinating to see what would have happened in the Senate vote for the ETS if the Greens had supported the governments bill.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Sunday, 25 July 2010, 08:25

    DarylS do you get to account for costs to determine centrelink income? If so do you get to account for your labour costs?

  • aussepom from frankston , Victoria Sunday, 25 July 2010, 00:25

    Reboot it is NOT perpetual motion , and yes it does need input power , but if done correctly, both the input and the magnetic energy can work together as an input. also it would require maintenance. The plasma conversion unit will be continued shortly, and you may have seen the earlier runs of it on utube. aussepom

  • DarylS from Darling Heights , Qld Saturday, 24 July 2010, 21:24

    reboot, you are right about Tesla being an unappreciated genius who is now coming into favour. Unfortunately any scientist or engineer can tell you that perpetual motion machines and free energy just can't exist. Rotating magnets are basically the way that electric motors work, but they need energy in to put energy out. Please consider that if it was possible someone would have done it, and the conspiracy theory approach wouldn't cover how no one in any country would have felt free to do so, as there have been lots of countries that would have loved to get ahead of the western industrial giants.

  • LaborHQ from Canberra , ACT Saturday, 24 July 2010, 17:24

    Hi there, On the user photos - pictures are optional. Every user's got a choice to pick an avatar picture when you edit your profile, upload your own photo or leave it blank . Cheers. Labor Connect Team

  • DarylS from Darling Heights , Qld Saturday, 24 July 2010, 13:24

    zedlive, the solar electricity grid connect scheme has been going for a couple of years. During the day my system puts power into the grid (which I'm sure my neighbours use), and at night I import power for lights. Has the green benefit of supplying additional power at peak industrial times plus reduces transmission losses. The system is good environmentally and financially up to this size, but my concern is that if I expand my system it will be at a significant net cost to me as the rules are at present. I'm not looking to make money as such but a 5% return on investment would encourage me to take money out of fixed term and invest in more solar. Because of Centrelink I would only get about 2% on my investment at present. See http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/~/media/publications/renewable-energy/small-scale-fact-sheet.ashx

  • restivo46 from Campbelltown , NSW Saturday, 24 July 2010, 13:24

    The Labor Government have failed yet again. For someone who said consultation was important, you have once again failed to consult with The Greens who after this Election will still have the Majority in The Senate. The Australian people do NOT want increased Power Charges because any Carbon price. We want your Government to remove the GST on anything that would reduce our Carbon Footprint not increased Power Charges. We want more Government help to install Solar Power at each Household. Unless you start talking to The Greens you still won't get any Carbon Price scheme through The Senate even after the Election.

  • DavidEgan from Haberfield , NSW Saturday, 24 July 2010, 10:24

    Infrastructure owners often absorb government handouts without federal representation on the boards, or temporally robust infrastructure sharing agreements. Hopefully green energy is not shutout of the sections of the network held by the dirtiest polluters, because nobody remembers the public money that went into upgrading their assets.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 24 July 2010, 07:24

    Sanga as a general rule my default position is not to have 7 people in a room with consolidated revenue at their feet pick market participant winners. I do however superimpose on that the underwriting of essentials for all, and common infrastructure [both regulation and physical] as over-riding that default. The justification in my mind for an ETS for example is to book a cost that common law [in a very generic sense] would not book to an entity because of proximity issues. With regards a Green Bank I would need to understand the justification in duplicating existing financing functions before accepting that it was rational. What is that justification?

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 24 July 2010, 07:24

    And Assepom what you are saying is that you have a box | some pipes | electronics etc that you can put at you house like a septic tank that will make power and release water out the other end - is that right? What a great idea. With regards your costs what are the biggies?

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 24 July 2010, 07:24

    Let's take Darryl's situation. What a fascinating proposition. I have a couple of questions Darryl if you stumble across this. Firstly, has it always been the case that you can wire up to the mains and if not what meant that you could do it now. A change the law, or a change in the contractual terms [by the guy with the legal right to control access] or the appearance of two way management technology? With regards financial settings you refer to I am going to argue that income is income, or profit is profit, no matter the circumstances, though I am an emmissions trading scheme man. I am an emmissions trading scheme man only because the I don't believe the cost of environmental degredation is being accounted for [because of proximity issues]. And so I am interested in knowing of the ETS has financial flows with regards your situation?

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Saturday, 24 July 2010, 07:24

    Boys these are all very common and standard business situations you are dealing with. Everyone has there views - if I can offer you this. Accept that your in a competition for capitol and for sales [distribution]. Never forget it. Never seek to justify it, or argue against it.

  • winniev1954 from Caboolture , Queensland Saturday, 24 July 2010, 06:24

    Hi Julia, you know there is a lot of hills in Australia especially the eastern states and I could not see why we could not put wind generators on top of the great devide as wind comes from all directions but I might add that the wind generators could be made right here in Australia we have the knowlage and the people to train or step straight into a job there by solving two problems with one thing,also I can see a win win for those who ren houses the landlords should be made to install solar power with the rebate they would get it would not cost them a great deal and the same as for hot water systems, the tennants should not have to put up with high power bills just because greedy landlords don't want to do the right thing.

  • sangerer from Albert Park , Victoria Saturday, 24 July 2010, 02:24

    HI aussepom. You are right and I know about your great idea. I included it in the co-generation / tri-generation part of the PM's energy efficiency paper to the department of Climate Change. I did not mention your project specifically as it is not my call to do that. However, I did think about you from a funding viewpoint under the environmental and green bond funding scheme that I proposed. You are absolutely right. There are a whole lot of great ideas that are simply falling by the way side, or that are not being funded because part of the problem is that the entire renewable energy sector has been bogged down in a silly debate crreated by a pack of ivory tower economists. I am just amazed that non of the politicians actually understood that what was proposed was a sledge hammer policy to kill governments for the benefit of a tax to justify an ideological debate that has at its roots in the preservation of a meter based centrally controlled energy sector. Not one of the ministers on any side of the fence had the guts to question their advisers who peddled this crap without questioning the logic. Bob Brown is still pushing it for all its worth. You and I are probably old enough to remember the academic debates of the 70's. Talk about a re-run. We even discussed the potential political impact of such a carbon tax / pollution tax ( in those days) on the party that would attempt to implement it. I feel like I am back in flares and platforms with a silly hairdo and oh yes, not to mention, the facial hair. What a come done. What a let down the last 2+ years have been for me. To remember the entire debate we had raging through the Monash corridors was such a drag. I guess all those students must now be heads of departments. Why else would they push their liberal party inspired academic experiment onto the next generation. I never thought of myself as radical when I pointed out how silly it was then. I still think of myself as basically a person who wants to ensure that the average punter doesn't get sucked in by ideologically driven nut bags. Costello and Schroeder must be laughing all the way to their next conference by now. I remember Costello standing in a Monash student forum raving about what a great idea it was and how we can make a pollution tax work if we can just crush the left wing unions. Well mate, your idea is alive and well and it is contained in the water and waste management plan for sustainable buildings and green suburbs. Now we just have to try and get Labour to introduce a UN / US / European style Green Bank so we can get a logical and budget neutral renewable funding system working in this country. Fair crack of the whip mate! What modern country relies on funding vital innovation and infrastructure on a cash hand out system during election times..... How basic can we Australian's be. We even announce giving the Carbon institute tax exemption status on top of grants when any research innovation of this type should be funded through a Green Bank Carbon Bond scheme that will ensure financial accountability and direct results in pollution reduction at the source. The issue is that funding it through a Bond scheme will put the checks and balances in place that would ensure due diligence. Since we both know that industry is not going to spend its own money that way, they expect the tax payer to fund it. The power of the coal lobby is truely awesome! The most pathetic thing is that the French already have a pilot project and a UK company recently contacted me about the conversion of coal ash waste to micro carbon compounds for the use in advanced concrete, paints and magnetic shielding in cell phones. They want to set up in Australia and start cleaning up the coal ash slag heaps. We have an innovative company called Blue-Gen leaving for Germany because we can't figure out the benefit of a national FIT that is capped and indexed to include waste gas, LNG units connected to high efficiency generators or waste water management systems that generate electricity as part of a co / tri-generation process. Sometimes I think we should just load some of the public servants and the less useful politicians onto a bulk coal carrier and sink the lot of them just of the continental shelf. But then again, I think about the environmental damage that would cause and ponder a another day.

  • aussepom from frankston , Victoria Saturday, 24 July 2010, 00:24

    Hi Julia If you want to move forward, then why did not Penny Wong look at my proposals, to create power from waste water. A dream no, the technology has been available since 2001, I proved it but no one wanted it or was interested. From a 15mega litre a day waste water treatment plant of my design, 1,630Mega Watts of power could be generated, with zero emissions, and she was not interested. The liberal party member Greg Hunt knows of what I can achieve, Martin Ferguson would not even see me. So why should I support you and your government, the Christmas Island is plenty big enough for all the boat people, just make the camp bigger, but why should the people pay to keep them! Send them home it’s cheaper. Now there is a new threat to the power industry, I have now developed a power generation unit for the home user, free power, well you may laugh, and think that I am joking but I am not, it’s real, and no pollution, again zero emissions, and you are not interested. Once again, you have made a promise but what technology are you going to use? Power in Victoria has a problem, it is at 23% efficient by the time that it gets to a home owner. Carbon capture, has not been fully testes, and it can not be as over time it could be released, but any thing that you do to the coal will lower the efficiency even more. It is also very expensive. Drying out the coal has already been tried, a pilot plat was built next to Hazelwood, it is called the ‘bricket factory’ it’s dried and compressed into a ‘brick’ then fed into the furnace. This is now has to be used for power generation due to the poor state of the power supply. All the power station could be run on gas, as they all have gas burners to run them up to temperature from cold, but it is to expensive to run all the time this way. Victoria can not shut down Hazelwood or Yalourne W until power stations are built to replace them. Wind power can not replace that amount of generation, as for Solar this is even more less efficient and expensive and still would not generate enough. A new coal fired power station even if started today would take over five years to come on line, closet to ten. Politicians live in fairly land when making these types of promises. Methods of treating waste water even to the ‘A’ Class is costly and it a lot of ‘tacked on processes’ and still not safe. My process is safe water and many time cleaner to a level that is safe even if drank, I call it ‘AAA’. A self generating power unit for homes for powering all there needs and at no cost and zero emissions, it is already a fact and will soon be available, and zero emissions. What technology do you have to compete?

  • public Friday, 23 July 2010, 22:23

    Regarding renewable energy I have a suggestion. My situation is that I have a solar electricity grid feedback system that works very well and ensures that I don't have to pay electricity bills, and I nearly break even in actual production versus usage. I would like to enlarge it, however it is not personally economical to do so. Reason is three fold, in that Qld only pays 44c per unit returned while other states pay 60 cents per unit generated, secondly the current guidelines state that those with existing systems aren't eligible for RECS or subsidies on any extension, and thirdly Centrelink take 50% of any returns (higher tax rate than the miners will ever pay). I know of four other households who would like to enlarge their systems but won't because they would be doing so at a significant loss. Make the system fairer and there would be a rise in locally produced clean energy which will reduce transmission costs.

  • DarylS from Darling Heights , Qld Friday, 23 July 2010, 22:23

    Regarding renewable energy I have a suggestion. My situation is that I have a solar electricity grid feedback system that works very well and ensures that I don't have to pay electricity bills, and I nearly break even in actual production versus usage. I would like to enlarge it, however it is not personally economical to do so. Reason is three fold, in that Qld only pays 44c per unit returned while other states pay 60 cents per unit generated, secondly the current guidelines state that those with existing systems aren't eligible for RECS or subsidies on any extension, and thirdly Centrelink take 50% of any returns (higher tax rate than the miners will ever pay). I know of four other households who would like to enlarge their systems but won't because they would be doing so at a significant loss. Make the system fairer and there would be a rise in locally produced clean energy which will reduce transmission costs.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Friday, 23 July 2010, 21:23

    As to the policy detail announced by Minister Wong, Sanga, it seems to be making the point that having conductive connective networks to regions with particular attributes is a step worth taking. With the greatest respect, I would take a look at the Ministers post, and take a look out your own ramble, and if it is the case that your ideas are not being taken up [which words like "smoke screen" and "kill a PM" and "I really don't know who has been advising the government" seem to open up the possibility of some truth in that position] then entertain the thought that perhaps you may have something to learn here.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Friday, 23 July 2010, 21:23

    As to the policy detail announced by Minister Wong, Sanga, it seems to be making the point that having conductive connective networks to regions with particular attributes is a step worth taking. With the greatest respect, I would take a look at the Ministers post, and take a look out your own ramble, and if it is the case that your ideas are not being taken up [which words like "smoke screen" and "kill a PM" and "I really don't know who has been advising the government" seem to open up the possibility of some truth in that position] then entertain the thought that perhaps you may have something to learn here.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Friday, 23 July 2010, 21:23

    We certainly Albert and Sanga [is it?] provide photos. As to whether the world is a better place for their display I'll leave for others to judge. Definitely two very different styles. Albert looks like he has a greater intellect. Sanga looks like he likes to type. In fact probably that understates his condition! But still he has gotten so dressed up for the occasion I am a but hesitant to ***** his bubble! As to whether the laying off of workers at a mine site, by a firm in an industry front and centre on carbon emissions, is Labor central I doubt that any readers of this blog will agree with you both that it is not, and certainly not Penny Wong.

  • sangerer from Albert Park , Victoria Friday, 23 July 2010, 20:23

    I agree Albert. What's even better is if the headless Zedlive could actually address the policy intelligently and not just ramble. Great Start Penny! Finally we are getting the priorities right. In order to address the shift from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable economy we have to address the grid infrastructure. There are three core issues. 1. Most of the states (other then NSW) were silly enough to privatize the grid. This is adding both supply delivery charges to final price of electricity (approx. 13 % of the bill), as well as additional charges in grid upgrade, maintenance and IT compliance charges related to another issue refered to as billing leakage ( see industry white paper that justifies the smart meter installation at domestic level ). Billing leakage adds approx. .80 cents in overcharging to every US citizen annually. - Australian data is kept by the Utilities. So the question is, how do we fix the private grid without adding an additional burden to the consumer in excess of the recent 30% average price rise (in the last 12 month) to pay for the implementation of the computer systems in readiness of the smart metering system? 2. The grid needs to be made more robust to deal with variable energy sources, address periodic dumping, even out field variance, fix the interchanges at the state borders ( e.g. SA and Vic ) and cope with spikes and outages. This is a major national infrastructure project. Clearly, it is not acceptable that each state pays for it since it will raise the price of electricty further. 3.) The grid needs to be divided into a series of state based micro-grids in order to allow for distributive generation, co-generation, tri-generations and to include community / council wide energy efficiency measures. This will include the installation of energy storage facilities such as 4 mw + battery supplies. These integrated storage facilities have to be supplemented with smart technology such as grid routers and related digital electricity switching technology that will allow the grid operator to meet unexpected outages and supply peaks. This work has to be done prior to implementing a smart grid anyway and should be done in conjunction with a grid upgrade and redesign prior to implementing a smart grid system. These three things clearly have to be negotiated with the Utitility companies and distributors. What is key in a privatized system is to negotiate a new supply agreement that allows the major companies to seamlessly move towards supply service agreements with multiple potential micro-grid generators connected to the future smart grid. (Please see Germany, UK, Denmark, Norway, Canada and others for examples). The thing that makes this system work in those countries is an intelligent national feed in tariff. So there are two things that need to be done if you are serious about getting the grid renewables ready. a.) A uniform, capped and indexed national feed in tariff that makes allowances for all renewables on a sliding scale as well as ceramic high efficiency heat gas powered Blue-Gen or the larger BloomBerg units. The current system is solar centric and does not make allowances for the cost and efficiency of curent solar technology. Solar is great if you have no wind. But if a farmer in a good wind area can install a 50 kw wind turbine for $64,000 why should he install a 50 kw solar facility at three or even four times the price? Why should a dairy famer install solar when he can install a ceramic heat generation facility that uses methane gas from cow waste for a lot less? b.) To introduce legilsation that requires Uitilities to implement the smart metering system at the supply and large scale distribution level first. This will ensure that accurate real time data can be collected at the actual electricity generation and distribution level. This data has to be monitored by an independent regulator. Since I am working with OASIS.org, NAREC, NIST and IEEE.org I can tell you that the smart grid standards are a work in progress and spending tax payer money on the implementation of domestic smart metering to address the industry billing leakage issue is a bit rich. Smart metering should first be implemented at the supply and distribution level and not at the domestic level. Why? Data integrity, verfiability and transparency must be first established at in independent level to accurately determine LRET and SREC's in real time. the current reliance on AEMO is simply indadequate and ill advised. You should then sit down with the states and nut out a suitable micro-grid implemenation strategy so you can actually stagger the expense of funding the grid upgrades. Whilst you are doing that, you might want to look at electrciity regulations that classify a wind turbine above 10 kw and a solar panel facility above 100kw as a power station. This silly regulation is stagnating distributed community energy generation, co- and tri-generation and holding back the entire renewable energy industry. If you really want investment that lowers carbon emissions and facilitates community micro-grids in line with the 2010 IEA energy efficiency report then you will have to look at the silly pieces of legislation that allows the Utilities and Grid owners to dictate terms to government. I realy don't know who has been advising government on energy policy Penny, but it seems to me that an energy policy that asks the tax payer to fund a system to justify energy price increases for the benefit of the corporate sector who own it, is clearly not policy that works in the best interest of every Australian? The debate is not about a Carbon Tax Penny. It never has been. That one is just a smoke screen to side track governments and kill a PM. The real debate is in the detail about to manage the transition with legislation that actually helps people with such as issues as investment in community energy so we can reduce carbon emissions. The entire carbon tax debate you have been prosecuting through parliament is based on the assumption that Australian's need to be penalized for doing the right thing. How about you change your approach and make it easier for people and business to invest in the right thing. Have a look at the Green Bank proposal I sent you. What do you thinK?

  • Kernaghan from Sydney , NSW Friday, 23 July 2010, 20:23

    Short memories Julia, you stated last year that there was to be no more debates on the climate control issues and now you want a community forum, PLEASE

  • albertokang from Wamberal , NSW Friday, 23 July 2010, 18:23

    If you are going to comment on issues the least you could do is post a Photo as how are people to know you are not a Political Operative for the other parties.

  • zedlive from Tamworth , NSW Friday, 23 July 2010, 18:23

    Let's call a spade a spade Penny. Because I tell you what is concerning. And it is that every time you turn around with a policy in your hand the miners are holding up a stop sign on the basis that they have the common good at heart. And how long does that common good last when the tables turn? Some might figuritively say "5 mins" and it may be a proposition that seems hard to argue with when you read things like this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/23/2962733.htm

Search

Candidate & MP Search

Search by a person's name, or their electorate.

Go

Hot Topics

+ Read all