[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Renato1

If renewables are cost competitive, what does one need an RET for? Business should be rushing in to install them.

I agree with you in principle that the RET is a fundamentally flawed idea. The government should address carbon emissions directly.

And why do the poor have to subsidize the rich through cross subsidies in the power bills?

Indeed, why should industry receive $10 Billion annually in fossil fuel subsidies?

(tenants have a hard time installing solar panels in their rental properties, then moving them from property to property)?

I agree, there should be no subsidies for domestic solar, the money would be far better spent on utility scale renewable projects with the profit generated being put into more renewable infrastructure. That way, it could be largely self funded and would grow exponentially.

Incidentally, in a recent study by REC Agents Association (RAA) the notion that rooftop solar was preferentially sudsidising the wealthy was shown to be a myth. The highest uptake is found in rural and low-income areas of Australia.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/roof...ustralia-63263

Curiously though, I have friend who works for a major company who says the company will be installing so many solar panels to provide all its electricity needs, with a six year payback period.

Yes, it's a no-brainer.
There are companies now that instal systems with no upfront cost. You pay them off using the money you otherwise would have spent on electricity. In areas with high rates of solar insolation that can be as fast as 3 years.

If this all works out, the question is still, why does one need an RET?

Well, the RET is an attempt to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. It is my opinion that there are better ways to achieve the desired outcome.
Another answer would be that the playing field isn't level. There is a hugely influential carbon lobby group that has been investing heavily to steer government policy.

From an insider:

https://newmatilda.com/2009/03/24/ha...red-kevin-rudd

Knowing that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) would be relied upon from the mid-1990s as the principal internal source of greenhouse economic advice, a "who's who" of fossil-fuel producers, burners and users bought chairs on an ABARE steering committee. (That is, they literally bought them: the price was $50,000 per year, and payers included the Australian Coal Association, the Australian Aluminium Council, BHP, CRA, the Business Council of Australia, the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, Exxon Corporation, Mobil Australia and Texaco). This committee oversaw the creation of the economic models on which crucial assessments about emission cuts were based.

I'm guessing that they invested in one or two forum trolls as well.....