On 12/07/2011 1:35 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:26 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
The other half is to be invested in
renewable energy.

With a carbon price capturing the external cost of carbon emissions,
renewable energy schemes should not require public funds other than for
research and, if it gets that far, proof of concept, neither of which
requires the expenditure of $billions.

Hot rocks may make it on its own given the carbon price, but any money
spent on capitalising solar and wind is, as I said, wasted.

Sylvia.


You might want to read this: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/


It's mostly propaganda.

I agree with government spending on RE, but the tax income from the 'Big
500' will be spent on RE, so industry is paying for RE roll-out.

There may be a clever piece of sleight of hand designed to appease the
Greens without actually spending money. Most of the money is for
"innovative" renewable energy schemes. As long as "innovative" is given
a reasonable meaning, the money won't be paid out to construct more of
the same solar and wind, and indeed may not be paid out at all in the
absence of some real innovation. The latter result may be the
government's intent.

Sylvia.