The Australian Government’s solar PV rebate program

[joshcryer]

The residential component of the PVRP-SHCP performed modestly against the chosen measures. The program was a major driver of a more than six-fold increase in PV generation capacity and output in the 2000s. However, the increase was off a low base and PV’s share of the Australian electricity market in 2010 is still only around 0.1 per cent. The data suggest there were equity issues associated with the program, with 66 per cent of all successful applicants residing in medium-high and high SES-rated postal areas. The program was also environmentally ineffective and costly. It will reduce emissions by 0.09 MtCO2-e/yr over the life of the rebated PV systems (0.015 per cent of Australia’s 2008 emissions) at an average abatement cost of between $257/tCO2-e and $301/tCO2-e. Finally, the program appears to have had a relatively minor impact as an industry assistance measure, with much of the associated benefit flowing to foreign manufacturers and most of the domestic benefit focused outside of the high value-added manufacturing areas.

https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=/media_releases/PB%2021%20SHCP%20final.pdf

[NNadir]

1. Other than that...

...it was just great.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

[kristopher]

2. That is an extremely odd critique.

At this point in the economic development of renewables such as PV the GOAL of subsidies isn't to directly act on social justice issues or to produce a large, immediate per dollar decrease in CO2 emissions.

The goal is to provide an incentive for attracting private money.

The private money matched to public funds drives investors to build factories - again with encouragement from subsidies.

As the process cycles forward it drives innovation and manufacturing efficiency which in turn lowers prices.

The metrics of success are therefore precisely the areas they discounted, while the areas they judged the program by are not part of the design goals.

That is a bizarre perspective for any legitimate analysis unless the law implementing the subsidies promised things than are not usually part of legislative language.

[XemaSab]

3. Why are you so attached to the capitalistic model?

I do admit that I would feel friendlier towards solar and wind if they didn't seem geared towards taking public land and money to line the pockets of investors.

[joshcryer]

5. The markets solve everything! Didn't you know?

[kristopher]

6. It isn't "attachment" it is "acknowledgment"

Acknowledgment that the economic system of the globe is capitalist. If you want to do something to change that, go ahead; and then I'll start planning using whatever system replaces it.

The problem with your criticism is that you and those like Josh clearly are under-informed on the topic of what economics is and are putting forth thoughts and conclusions with about as much validity as the average teabagger ranting about socialism. You simply can't "wing it" on this stuff and expect to have a better grasp of reality than people who spend their lives in study.

It doesn't matter that you have different motives or goals than those you criticize - all of your motives and goals are able to be discussed more effectively, more realistically and more productively if you simply know what you are talking about before you start drawing final conclusions.

Why not go to the library and get two textbooks and spend a couple of weeks in private review of the contents?

1) Econ 101
2) Natural resource and environmental econ.

Be sure to pay attention to the part where the difference between normative economics and positive economics is discussed.

[XemaSab]

8. I got an A in environmental economics

from an accredited, degree-granting university.

Something tells me the Mark Z. Jacobson School of Copy-Paste isn't accredited.

[kristopher]

10. Sure you did.

[XemaSab]

11. You've been asked several times what your credentials are

For someone who lives in a glass house, you're awfully quick with the stones.

[kristopher]

14. Your posts display an obvious lack of knowledge of basic economics.

[joshcryer]

16. Says the high schooler.

:rofl:

[XemaSab]

18. Can you provide a link to ONE post I've made

wherein I display "an obvious lack of knowledge of basic economics?" :shrug:

[kristopher]

20. Yes, and many more besides.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=265164&mesg_id=265269

[XemaSab]

21. Asking you why you're a fan of the capitalistic model makes me ignorant?

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

23. Because the capitalist model has worked out so freaking well so far!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

27. Let's look at what you said

And what it was in response to:

Posted by kristopher on Mon Nov-15-10 06:34 AM
That is an extremely odd critique.
At this point in the economic development of renewables such as PV the GOAL of subsidies isn't to directly act on social justice issues or to produce a large, immediate per dollar decrease in CO2 emissions.

The goal is to provide an incentive for attracting private money.

The private money matched to public funds drives investors to build factories - again with encouragement from subsidies.

As the process cycles forward it drives innovation and manufacturing efficiency which in turn lowers prices.

The metrics of success are therefore precisely the areas they discounted, while the areas they judged the program by are not part of the design goals.

That is a bizarre perspective for any legitimate analysis unless the law implementing the subsidies promised things than are not usually part of legislative language.


Posted by XemaSab on Mon Nov-15-10 12:18 PM
Why are you so attached to the capitalistic model? I do admit that I would feel friendlier towards solar and wind if they didn't seem geared towards taking public land and money to line the pockets of investors.

Anyone with a knowledge of economics would know
1) that my critique has nothing to do with "embracing a capitalistic model" and
2) that the policies I'm pointing to have absolutely nothing to do with "takings" of public land nor rewarding wealthy investors.

There is a system that is economically biased against a group of technologies that humanity needs to cultivate.

The policies to encourage the DESIRED CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM are just that policies to encourage a desired change in the system.

To characterize those policies as misappropriations of public resources for the benefit of a wealthy elite is sheer nonsense that indicates a total ignorance of the topic.

[XemaSab]

31. I also got an A in ancient Greek philosphy

You're really happy inside that cave you got there, aren't you?

[joshcryer]

13. Uh, yes.

Please don't pretend to know people online, XemaSab knows her shit and is very involved in this sort of stuff. Very involved.

[XemaSab]

17. I'm from Northern California

so one might even say I'm hella involved. :D

[joshcryer]

4. You need to take a class in civics.

The evidence shows that people who build solar in AU are rich fucks who are doing it for a tax break. This is a regressive tax policy.

[kristopher]

7. No I don't, no it isn't.

It is a subsidy for encouraging a vital technology designed to address what you PRETEND is your number one concern - climate change.

[joshcryer]

9. Climate change is my number one concern, which is why I am against low-mitigation technologies.

But hey I'm still behind building a factory that can build a solar field in NM / AZ which could power the whole entire United States. But that's "magic tech" category and pretty much subverts your market fantasies.

[kristopher]

12. Show me a plan.

Explain how YOU are going to make that factory actually appear.

I don't want to hear your simplistic shit where, as you say, "magic" is used to suddenly change the world's economic system. I want to hear how we get from where we are now to the goal of a non-carbon economy.

Take your time.

[joshcryer]

15. Oh, no, don't get me wrong, I'm practically a full on doomer these days.

The concept I am referring to comes from a paper entitled, "Exponential growth of large self-reproducing machine systems"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3541006

I myself am incapable of doing this, and do not pretend to be capable of doing this, however, on a scale of "can it be done" I rank it up there with Jacobson's plan. I mean, really, 50 WWII's or 600 Apollo's, or this? This is probably more fucking likely!

And yes it's "magic technology," because you frankly wouldn't accept any other term.

But likewise, what you are suggesting to me is nothing more than "magic economics."

[kristopher]

19. How does the soalr plant get built. I don't want bullshit I want a plan that works.

[joshcryer]

22. I don't want bullshit, either (see: 50 WWII's or 600 Apollo's). I want something that works.

You'd need a few billion dollar grant or "investment" to build the thing, it'd take a few thousand scientists and engineers, but it could be done.

[kristopher]

28. You are *spouting* bullshit.

How do you get that grant or investment?

Give me a plan.

[GliderGuider]

29. Why don't you give us a plan?

And maybe some credentials to back it up, while you're at it.

[joshcryer]

30. I never said I could. Just like Jacobson never said he could get 50 WWII's or 600 Apollo's.

[kristopher]

32. When you are against all the plans that the professionals propose

then you damned sure need a better one if you expect to have any credibility at all.

You obviously DO NOT have an alternative to working within the system so why don't you stow the crap so that those of us who want to discuss reality can get on with it.

[joshcryer]

33. The "system" isn't doing shit about the problem. That's the whole point.

AU's PV program has done nothing to build out solar PV, and it has come at an enormous cost. It basic regressive tax policy that favors the rich, and will not result in solar build out after the program ends (which I believe it did in Oct?). Bank on it.

[kristopher]

34. Your ignorance is running rampant - get it under control.

Continuing to deny the facts about the policy goals and insisting on using false measures to determine effectiveness is, at this point in our discussion, nothing more than willful ignorance of the facts and pure cussed obstinacy.

[joshcryer]

35. Yeah? Let's see what happens to AU PV installations in the next few years.

It's really easy to test this stupidity.

[joshcryer]

36. BTW, put your money where your mouth is. I bet you $50 PV installs in AU...

...either stall or grow at a rate less than they did during the peak of the PRVP-SHCP programs. It's fucking guaranteed.

[XemaSab]

24. I think josh is proposing building a solar plant

not a soalr plant.

I don't think soalr stands a chance of getting us off fossil fuels.

[Systematic Chaos]

26. You're too fucking cool.

:rofl:

[Systematic Chaos]

25. Did not! Did too! Did NOT! Did TOO! NO YOU DIDN'T!! Y E S I D I D!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM