Making Labor great again

New pricing policies will be needed to ensure that Labor values of a fair go for all remove the inequities of the Abbott government’s mishandling of power subsidies that enrich the rich at the expense of the poor.

With the predicted explosion in rooftop solar panels and new technology batteries the situation will be exacerbated, as is being proven in America. As more users reduce their dependence the grid, the per unit cost of power increases for those still dependent on it. Those fortunate enough to benefit from the sale of the excess electricity they generate are dependent on the grid to sell their product. They cannot be expected to isolate themselves from the grid, which will provide backup for times of low solar input, periods that can extend for many days, especially in the southern part of Australia where most people live.

The need for backup to ensure continuity and reliability of supply means that existing generators need to be available and capable of fast reaction to vagaries of the weather. This is where the government needs to encourage research and development, which Australia could export to the world.

Meanwhile, existing pricing policies have to change to include a contribution to the growth and improvement of the infrastructure of the grid to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits. For example, why should someone who rents a property, whose landlord has no incentive to invest the capital required to generate power, be expected to subsidise their neighbours, who effectively trade in and profit from their panels?

Under the Abbott government power subsidies favour the big end of town and middle class property owners, they are effectively a regressive tax on the poor. There will be  loud protests from those who benefit, but Labor must stick to its guns.

It is interesting to ponder the new technologies that will inevitably arise in the next 15 years. Perhaps nuclear fusion will make the 50% target irrelevant, but this technology is politically unacceptable in Australia. It is to our great credit that we take a stand against the obvious dangers of the nuclear industry.

Similarly, we have taken a stand against fracking, a principled position rejected by America, the world’s second biggest polluter (after China). In 1990, coal generated 53% of US electricity and natural gas 10%. By 2012, coal had fallen to 38% and natural gas had grown to 30%. But at what cost to the environment? Fracking is not an acceptable option for Australia.

China has announced plans to shift to renewable energy, but fossil fuels will continue to provide most of their power. India, the third biggest polluter, has announced that it will not take any steps to reduce their emissions unless the other major nations reduce theirs. Clearly someone must show the way.

Australia can already hold its head high internationally, especially as we have some unique circumstances. Denmark boasts of generating 140% of their power requirements through wind farms, but Denmark has the most expensive power in Europe. When the wind doesn’t blow, or demand exceeds wind input it can buy power, usually nuclear or hydroelectric, from neighbouring countries, as can Germany. This option is not available to Australia - we must stand alone.

Hydro power is an option, both for power generation and storage, and perhaps deserves more research, despite the environmental impact of dams and reservoirs. The government will need to make some important decisions in balancing the competing demands of the Greens and industry.

A major problem will arise in the late 2020s when existing sources of renewable energy start to fail. Solar panels have a limited life. When I first installed panels in 1987, the expected life was ten years. The panels I recently installed have an expected life of 25 years, which is great. However, by 2030, an increasing number of panels will be failing, due simply to old age. With many household budgets depending on the savings, and the non-renewable sector having shrunk and increasingly dependent on their input, this is a factor I don’t think has been acknowledged. We can reasonably expect the government to include this in their planning.

Same thing applies to wind turbines - I suspect their life is considerably less than solar panels!