Carbon price: what’s in it for renewables?

July 14, 2011

Climate campaigners have been understandably happy about the funding bodies for renewable energy contained in the carbon price package. It seems that these measures are largely in place because of strong campaigning by the grassroots climate movement and the Greens MPs in negotiations.

The carbon price agreement will create a Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), an independent body that will have $10 billion worth of funds to allocate as loans or equity investments. These are not grants, but will help renewable energy projects to get off the ground where they are unable to find finance.

See also: Gillard’s carbon price: not a serious response
Offsets: the hot air in Gillard's climate plan

Half the $10 billion will be for strictly renewable energy, while the other half will be available to renewables or “clean” gas/renewable hybrids, but not for “clean coal” carbon capture technology.

The other significant move is to create the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), which will administer $3.2 billion of existing renewable energy projects.

The renewable energy industry has welcomed these new arrangements, as have renewable energy and climate campaigners. To understand why they represent a real step forward, it is important to understand the limitations faced by renewable energy in recent years.

In the electricity market, renewables have to compete against established fossil fuel generators. Coal-fired power stations that have paid off initial loans have to pay only for fuel and maintenance: they provide very cheap electricity and it’s hard for new technologies to compete.

Government schemes to help renewable energy compete in this environment, such as the Renewable Energy Target, have been stalled time after time by poor design and low targets.

This resulted in the wind industry, the only large-scale renewable energy being built now, stalling after 2007. Then the global financial crisis made it hard even for approved wind farm projects to secure capital for construction to go ahead, and the industry has barely resumed growth now.

Essentially, even though the CEFC will only provide loans and investment not outright grants, it can assist projects that were unable to get loans otherwise. We can be confident that this will deliver a significant boost to the construction of renewables.

Recognising these positives, we must also be clear what the limitations of the framework are.

The fact that the CEFC and ARENA are both independent bodies protects the schemes from interference on the whims of ministers, maybe also giving some protection against a future Abbott government..

But it should be understood that independence from the minister does not mean they will push the climate movement’s agenda either. Their independence actually removes the agencies from the nominal public accountability of an elected government.

The Labor government has not had a change of heart and decided to replace fossil fuels with clean renewable energy.

Its stated aim for the carbon price is that it will drive a shift from coal to gas and “clean coal” power generation. Renewable energy support is a minor add-on, a concession to the Greens and grassroots campaigners.

Existing government support for the gas/solar hybrid power plant at Chinchilla, Queensland, highlights the risks in the half of the CEFC funds that are for “clean energy”.

This can be used to greenwash the gas industry, including notoriously dirty coal seam gas extraction.

We cannot assume that the CEFC will fund the most useful renewable energy, such as solar thermal plants with heat storage for night-time operation. That option is one that renewable energy campaigners will still have to campaign for.

Large-scale solar photovoltaic plants that only operate during the day, but are cheaper than solar thermal, may well be supported instead.

Renewable energy capacity will still be built largely by private owners in accordance with the laws of the market, on the basis of what makes a profit. This will not be enough to replace fossil fuel capacity with renewables in the short timeframe that climate change demands.

The only serious program to do that — the Zero Carbon Australia plan — demands about $37 billion a year in funding and a clear strategic direction the market cannot provide.

Solar thermal power with storage is a key step towards 100% renewable energy, as it dispels the myth that renewables are unreliable.

It is unlikely to be introduced without significant government support, or outright government ownership, and it's not clear the CEFC will be enough.

Given that almost all existing power generation capacity in Australia were built by the government on non-commercial principles — the coal plants that are out-competing renewables in our privatised electricity market — the climate movement should not shy away from demanding the government do the same for renewable energy.

Crikey’s Bernard Keane wrote in criticism of the renewables funding that “buying abatement from the electricity sector is the kind of policy garbage we’re used to from the opposition — clear government winner-picking. It’s an implicit acknowledgement that a low carbon price and heavy compensation won’t drive a rapid transition to less emissions-intensive electricity generation.”

Keane’s support for free-market dogma appears to blind him to the real risk: that this policy isn’t clearly picking what we know ought to be the real winner — 100% renewable energy.


A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place, saying it is probably beta decay per the Widom Larson Theory. Repackaging the terminology to avoid embarrassment will not erase over twenty years of suppression and the reality of cold fusion. Link:
Given that this is our money they're playing with, what about a transparent organisation of which we the people have a say? For instance, what about installing hydrogen and electric charging infrastructure for cars? That's somewhere I'd want my tax dollars going, and if I could see my money at work and new my power as a citizen, I'd gladly pay such a tax.
How is it responsible socialism to hand over the management of the climate's temperature to carbon trading stock markets, giant energy and oil corporations and politicians?

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.