Comments on Dylan McConnell "How much does wind energy cost? Debunking the myths", 23/06/2015
While two people have quite different figures, it is unclear which one is more reliable and accurate after reading this article. It seems to me this article is not without its own shortcomings. For example, are all the quoted favourable figures really all reliable and accurate in the first Place?
I must however confess that I have not read the other piece to which this article is debating. But it may be reasonably expected that piece should also contain some quoted figures as opposed all figures coming from that author alone.
Showing posts with label renewable energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label renewable energy. Show all posts
2009-08-19
Renewable energy has a bright future in Australia
Comments on Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large for The Australian “Renewable energy target initiative is mad, bad tokenism”, 19 /08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25949700-12250,00.html
Paul Kelly is a well respected commentator in Australia and is mostly balanced in his comments. What he says should be listened to very carefully. However, although I hate to say this, I may have to disagree with him on this issue.
I think some comments make sense that the energy consumption worldwide is unsustainable and the market has been unable to price the true costs of energy consumption. It is a market failure in the global scale. Energy consumption is underpriced for two main reasons, one is that fossil fuels, like oil, gas and coal are limited resources and not renewable, current level of consumption means sooner or later they will be gone, but the market does not take that into account.
The other major failure is the carbon emissions into the atmosphere to form greenhouse gases. This means there is a very big negative externality of fossil fuel consumption.
In this context, to develop and use more renewable energies is a correction of the significant and known market failures. Yes, it is difficult to price fossil fuel from long term sustainability point of view, although the price for limiting carbon emissions may be easier to determine. Nevertheless, renewable energies are likely to be competitive if all the costs of fossil fuels are considered.
Australia has a huge advantage over most other countries in developing renewable energies. It has one of the lowest population per land unit. Most of its vast land enjoys excellent sunshine all year round. It is surrounded by sea from all sides. So there are the most enviable natural conditions in Australia to develop renewable energies.
Further, Australia has also been in the forefront of solar energy technologies. It was reported that California will use an Australian firm’s solar technology to construct a large scale solar energy base. So why don’t we put that technology into good use and improve Australia’s energy consumption and contribute to the global effort to combat global warming?
The Australian Industry Group submission, the Business Council of Australia, the Productivity Commission submission and the Ross Garnaut argument, well all respectable, seem all miss the point of market failures, or at least have not take the full account of them. Besides, the AI and BCA are business focused and there is self interest involved.
Paul Kelly is a well respected commentator in Australia and is mostly balanced in his comments. What he says should be listened to very carefully. However, although I hate to say this, I may have to disagree with him on this issue.
I think some comments make sense that the energy consumption worldwide is unsustainable and the market has been unable to price the true costs of energy consumption. It is a market failure in the global scale. Energy consumption is underpriced for two main reasons, one is that fossil fuels, like oil, gas and coal are limited resources and not renewable, current level of consumption means sooner or later they will be gone, but the market does not take that into account.
The other major failure is the carbon emissions into the atmosphere to form greenhouse gases. This means there is a very big negative externality of fossil fuel consumption.
In this context, to develop and use more renewable energies is a correction of the significant and known market failures. Yes, it is difficult to price fossil fuel from long term sustainability point of view, although the price for limiting carbon emissions may be easier to determine. Nevertheless, renewable energies are likely to be competitive if all the costs of fossil fuels are considered.
Australia has a huge advantage over most other countries in developing renewable energies. It has one of the lowest population per land unit. Most of its vast land enjoys excellent sunshine all year round. It is surrounded by sea from all sides. So there are the most enviable natural conditions in Australia to develop renewable energies.
Further, Australia has also been in the forefront of solar energy technologies. It was reported that California will use an Australian firm’s solar technology to construct a large scale solar energy base. So why don’t we put that technology into good use and improve Australia’s energy consumption and contribute to the global effort to combat global warming?
The Australian Industry Group submission, the Business Council of Australia, the Productivity Commission submission and the Ross Garnaut argument, well all respectable, seem all miss the point of market failures, or at least have not take the full account of them. Besides, the AI and BCA are business focused and there is self interest involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
