Subsidising solar development for polluters

Bluescope steel logo

Bluescope want your taxes!

A news item caught your correspondent’s eye last week. According to an ABC local news report of 4 July, the government is set to shell out half of the required funding for a project which will allow solar panels to be integrated into metal roofing. Due to one of Australia’s most polluting companies being on its knees due to the carbon tax (inserts <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags here) we, the taxpayer, are to contribute $2.3 million of this $5 million solar power project for Bluescope Steel.

The interesting part of the deal is that general manager of sales and marketing at Bluescope Steel, Andrew Garey, told reporters that the company needed innovation (read funding) to stay competitive (read keep polluting).

“We can’t do it all ourselves so we have got partnerships with people around the world including universities, governments, and commercial operations overseas.”

The point here is not that the government’s generous handout (as part of the Emerging Renewables program) is not encouraging solar development. It is that the hard working taxpayer (that’s you and I readers) are funding a commercial enterprise for which we will not see any individual benefit.

Should taxpayers be funding major commercial enterprises such as Bluescope? Or should the federal government be looking to encourage domestic solar energy on the principle that industrial giants can certainly afford a few million to invest in what is the latest in renewable energy R&D?

After all solar feed-in tariffs have been slashed across the country by state governments, the latest being Queensland’s Campbell “No Can Do” Newman’s effort to slash the tariff from 44 cents per kilowatt hour to a ridiculous 8 cents. How would solar supporters who have suffered such a solar scorched earth policy react when they hear they, along with their fellow taxpayers, are funding behemoths such as Bluescope Steel?

A touch uncharitable readers? After all shouldn’t we be supporting any innovation in solar energy? Should we be prepared to shell out a few million here and there in the name of development of solar energy? Or should taxpayers funding be more directed towards directly benefitting the taxpayers themselves?

Don’t hesitate to have your say either here in the comments or over at our Facebook Page.

Comments

  1. Warwick Baldwin says

    I recently recieved a letter from AGL(my NSW power retailer) stating :The NSW govt had accessed the power retailers received a 7.7c benefit from the gross feed scheme and therefore my subsidy would drop by 8c .So now AGL gets a .3c benefit from this change and neither the government or AGL seem to be held accountable for sticking to the terms of what I was led to believe was a contractual agreement !
    With annual power costs hitting 4 to $5000 (forecast 12 mths ahead) for a house with solar hot water,double insulation,fluro down lights and ceiling fans I am quickly cumming to the conclusion that it is a better idea for the solar industry to finance houses into getting independent of the grid.Do the maths ie $5000 is the home loan interest on approximately an $80 000 home loan.Why do the banks not ad this option to new home loans to increase the borrowing capacity of their cash strapped customers.PS If anybody woul lke to employ me to work on this I am willing and able as this could turn the tide in my opinion.

Speak Your Mind

Please keep the SolarQuotes blog constructive and useful with these 4 rules:

1. Real names are preferred - you should be happy to put your name to your comments.
2. Put down your weapons.
3. Assume positive intention.
4. If you are in the solar industry - try to get to the truth, not the sale.
5. Please stay on topic.

GET THE SOLARQUOTES WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
%d bloggers like this: