Environmental Policy/Programs/FIT/REBS concerns list for ABC

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » General

Environmental Policy/Programs/FIT/REBS concerns list for ABC

(15 posts) (10 voices)

Started 11 years ago by Jeffbloggs
Latest reply from rsigmund

Tags:

No tags yet.

Jeffbloggs
Member

I have recently been invited by the ABC, to provide a list of concerns and issues regarding environmental policies and programs. The investigative reporter that I am in contact with would like to do a series of stories, in order to bring these issues to the general publics attention. I would like to point out that; I am not doing this for any reward, neither do I have any control, influence or any association with the ABC or what the ABC will publish. I am only trying to make the most of this opportunity to have these matters heard, and I would appreciate any feedback via this forum on any experiences, problems, concerns, or even ideas on how these schemes could be improved.

Subjects could include:
1) Low retailer tariffs for FIT households
2) FIT metering problems/issues/solutions
3) PV system affordability with FITs
4) Forced/uncomfortable reduction in household energy consumption due to FIT
5) Unfair or questionable flat-rate retail tariffs with FIT
6) FIT Taxation issues Pensioners/Taxpayers
7) Any other policy, corporate issues or ideas

I will compile as much of this information as possible and include it in my submission.
Thank you in advance for your help in addressing these issues.

Posted Wednesday 1 Sep 2010 @ 1:20:28 pm from IP #
cool at home
Member

I would like to see someone do something on current household design trends and local councils' (apparent) lack of control in regard to approval of energy guzzling designs.

Posted Wednesday 1 Sep 2010 @ 1:28:04 pm from IP #
solar_star
Member

The lack of "right to solar access".

You can spend a fortune on putting solar panels , solar hot water on your roof and your next door neighbour doesn't have to take them into account when they renovate ( or when they plant a fast growing tree). Which is also something that should be considered when they are laying out house blocks on new estates - making sure that the street layout and mandated building position on each block gives maximum access to the sun.

Posted Wednesday 1 Sep 2010 @ 9:17:22 pm from IP #
termite
Member

"Right to solar access" is a bit of a problem. As a keen gardener, I would want to be able to plant a shady tree in my garden. I would also care about not shading all my neighbour's roof, but I also see the benefit of shading my roof, too (especially as it's dark brown and uninsulated at the moment).

The geography of the area is also entirely relevant:
I once owned a house that was downhill of the tall house to its north. Had I a right to solar access, then no-one could have built anything on my neighbour's block. That certainly wouldn't be fair to my neighbours. If the land is on the south side of a steep hill, you can't claim any right to sunlight that was never going to infiltrate.

Sadly, I think it ends up being a combination of neighbour relations and reasonable development controls, rather than a specific right to solar access.

My suggestions for the abc:
* Power efficiency in appliances on standby. Europe has it, we just need to legislate it.
* Whole-of-life recycling plans for appliances (ie few types of plastic used, easy to replace parts, easily disassembled for recycling, manufacturers/retailers collect their own e-waste - kudos to Dell who do)
* Container deposit legislation - should be federal, not state
* Hefty fees on air conditioning in new/newish dwellings. Yes, it may be the death of an industry (it should be), but it will be a shot in the arm for other industries. That alone would make people think about designing better-insulated and ventilated homes.

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 12:27:54 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Could I add...

Environmental policies should not steal 'the greeness' from other Environmental policies eg Solar Credits stealing from the MRET resulting in economy wide Co2 emmisions higher than just with MRET (Pre split of MRET).

Feel free to point out the obvious: That its well past 1984 and this thing should be expected

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 1:59:17 am from IP #
munter
Member

+1 rsignmund

Here are a few other ideas:

1. The inefficiency of continued policy change on the industry, consumers and the environment (ie NSW transition from net to gross fit, creation then removal of various rebates etc)
2. The inequity of combining FITs with upfront rebates - people in NSW who got SHCP are effectively being handsomely rewarded despite not necessarily putting in a cent of their own money. This is a highly inequitable arrangement.
3. The inconsistency of providing inefficient subsidies for solar purportedly to transition from fossil fuels without backing it up with sensible incentives to minimise consumption in the first place ie - low variable charges for utilities should be increased to reward those who consume less.
4. The government preference for small scale domestic solar over utility scale solar despite the likely inefficiencies (higher cost, sub-optimal installations, high cost of administration etc) of supporting small scale installations.
5. The inconsistencies between states' renewable energy policies and how the issue of renewable energy support should be handled in a nationally consistent manner.

Sorry if these all seem a bit negative but there is so much worng with state and federal renewables policy that a lot of bad news stories fall out of it.

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 2:39:22 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Thank you for the comments so far.
Please feel free to be as negative or positive as necessary. Our current environmental policies are hardly adequate enough to deal with the effects of climate change and it's externalities, and that is the whole purpose of this list. Don't hesitate to present links or comprehensive reasoning for your ideas/concerns, as this will only strengthen the presentation of these issues in the list.

rsigmund
Could you please expand on your statement, and possibly point me to some supporting evidence to your claim? This could become a main component of the issues I will present and any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:02:16 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

Australians are not taking energy conservation seriously while they build gigantic expensive houses.
Million-dollar houses earn prizes for environmental responsibility. That is stupidity!

People should be encouraged by laws, incentives and social pressure to build or renovate cheap ($100,000?) dwellings that have less than 50 square metres of floor area per occupant

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:17:44 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

@ everyone
I think the main reason that energy conservation is not promoted strongly by government, is that in reduces consumption, and that is never good for a "growing" economy. Can anyone think of a way around this conundrum, and possibly still let "conservation" provide economic stimulus, despite the lack of future consumption returns for the economy?
Likewise can we(households)conserve and still promote the development of RE at the same time? ie If the environmentally conscious reduce consumption, who will buy the energy produced by RE households? Maybe uncontrollable consumption is the root of all evil, and we have to remove these "drivers" in the wrong direction, if we want to reach our goal of sustainability. Just a thought.

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:40:57 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

Re: over-size houses:
http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/09_ResearchReports/EnergyIntensity/htm/chapter_6.htm
(From 1989-90 to 2006-07) "A reduction in household occupancy and an increase in both house size and ownership of appliances (structural effect) are estimated to have led to an increase in energy consumption of 84 petajoules."

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:04:28 am from IP #
Catopsilia
Member

CHARACTERISTICS OF AUSTRALIAN HOMES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4614.0.55.002Main+Features4Apr+2010

Australian homes are biggest in the world:
http://www.switzer.com.au/business-news/news-stories/australian-homes-are-biggest-in-the-world/
"Australia can lay claim to having the largest homes in the world. Data commissioned by CommSec from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the average floor area of new homes hit a record high of 214.6 square metres in the last financial year. The average floor area of new free-standing houses was also at a record high of 245.3m”."
"Homes in other parts of the world are far smaller. The latest European survey shows that Denmark has the biggest homes (houses and flats) with an average floor area of 137 square metres, followed by Greece (126m”), and the Netherlands (115.5m”). Homes in the UK are the smallest in Europe at 76m”."

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:33:56 am from IP #
Diver
Member

Are new 5 star homes both energy efficient & environmentally friendly? A few points:

Trendy black rooves mounted with large high water use evaporative coolers. There is a very strong case for the mandatory use of heat reflective roof paint for all new housing construction, including renovations.

Many new houses are still not solar efficient; I thought this was suppose to have been addressed years ago for all new housing, or is it just slack in certain areas?

New houses with high percentage impermeable outdoor areas are creating urban deserts and restricting groundwater recharge. Should outdoor designs and their environmental influence on the Urban Heat Island Effect also contribute to the assessment of star ratings?

Also, many appliances are purchased on styling choice, "this one looks nice, let's buy this". Electric kettles are the classic example, most of the ones sold have very poor heat retention. If someone visits 10 minutes after you last boiled the kettle, the water will already have lost most of its heat. For some products, energy efficiency ratings can be misleading as per electric kettles (which do not have star ratings in any case despite their high use).

A product's standby energy demand should also be rated.

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 5:42:34 am from IP #
aussiesue
Member

While on the subject of house building, what about the disconnect between Federal/State Sustainability legislation/policies and Local Government policies/interpretation. Local Government policies seem to be nearly always more conservative.

Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 10:29:38 am from IP #
PV2010
Member

Aussiesue.............Local government are bound by a hierarchy of State,Federal planning and building codes and policies, in addition to requirements of the BCA and other guiding documents. Having experienced working for local government, implementing local action is commonly constrained by planning legislation outside of ones control. In a council keen to take the initiative this is very frustrating, when neither a carrot or stick can be employed.

Jeffbloggs..............I would like to see the body corporates of multi unit developments (usually the best PV real estate in a city) be able to access the RECS multiplier. A recent ruling (by ORER I believe) has determined under the current structure, body corporates would not be able to access the multiplier rebates!!! The body corporate is required to restructure for the purposes of getting the multiplier, which is a massive hurdle.

Posted Saturday 4 Sep 2010 @ 12:46:07 am from IP #
rsigmund
Member

Jeffbloggs

Under the MRET before the split

1 REC represents/ed 1 MWh of nameplate renewable generation capability

But...

With Solar Credits which replaced a grant, there is a REC's multiplier which means/t that 1 REC could no longer logically be considered to represent 1MWh and that in reality the MRET target would not be met (fall short of the 20% target)

Another way to think about this is that 1 REC = 1MWh - l *(1MWh) where l is a factor less than 1 which represent system wide implications and sale/use of RECs and S/C RECS.

1 MWh (mega watt hour - an amount of energy as opposed to a rate of energy)

The best resource is probably

http://www.orer.gov.au

Here for RECs

http://www.orer.gov.au/sgu/index.html

Here for the Solar Credits multiplier

http://www.orer.gov.au/sgu/option1.html

Posted Monday 6 Sep 2010 @ 2:21:38 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic