|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Bar For non Automotive Related Chat |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
15-07-2011, 04:35 PM | #301 | ||
Petro-sexual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,527
|
But increased temperatures due to excess CO2 was the cause of that volcano.
Dont you know when you heat something it expands, and if it is a gas, or liquid (magma), in a solid container (Earth's crust), it increases in pressure. |
||
15-07-2011, 04:49 PM | #302 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 43
|
The following article by Ross Gittins an Economist with the SMH makes sence of ALL the ******** and crap that is written and said about the carbon tax
"Carbon 'money-go-round' explained Ross Gittins explains how Julia Gillard's carbon tax will not reduce the average person's disposable income Give and take: this new tax is a piece of cake Years ago, the Keating government had a problem with pensioners wasting taxpayers' money on prescriptions. Knowing their elderly patients got their prescriptions free, doctors were happily issuing ones their patients might or might not end up needing and pensioners were taking them to the chemist and getting them filled, just in case. Many of these often very expensive drugs were not used. So the government decided to impose a nominal fee on pensioner prescriptions of $2 a pop, just to make people think twice about whether they'd be needed. But, anxious though it was to save big money by reducing the waste of taxpayer-subsidised pharmaceuticals, the government had no desire to leave pensioners out of pocket. It worked out the average number of prescriptions pensioners had filled, multiplied it by $2, and increased pensions by that amount. I dredge up this story because it may help you understand something about Julia Gillard's planned carbon tax that many people find puzzling. If Gillard is imposing a carbon tax to raise the price of electricity and gas, with some flow through to the prices of other items, so as to discourage us from using so much fossil fuel, why is she undoing the effect by giving us back most of the tax we'll pay as cuts in income tax and increases in pensions and family benefits? What's the point of this money-go-round, as Tony Abbott calls it? How can it do any good? Though the carbon tax will raise about $9 billion a year in revenue, raising revenue is not its primary purpose. Rather, its purpose is to change people's behaviour. And one of the most basic ideas in economics is that the best way to change people's behaviour is to change the prices they face. If there's some activity you wish to discourage, raise its price relative to all the other prices people pay. When, after a cyclone, the price of bananas shoots up relative to the prices of other fruit, people tend to buy fewer bananas and more apples and oranges. When the price of beef rises more than other meat, people buy less beef and more chicken. The thinking is that if you raise the price of fossil fuels and emissions-intensive goods relative to the prices of all the other things people buy, they'll change their spending in ways that reduce the use of fossil fuels. It's not necessary to leave people worse off to get them to change their spending patterns. And since the primary purpose of the carbon tax is to change relative prices rather than to raise revenue, you may as well return the revenue to people by cutting income tax and increasing benefits. (You can't give back all the revenue because you're using part of it for other purposes, so you favour low- and middle-income households and let higher-income households take it on the chin. Since your calculations about how much the carbon tax will cost people are based on averages, and not everyone fits the average, you give low-income households a bit more than the average so fewer of them are undercompensated.) Now, you may say finding ways to cut your use of electricity and gas isn't as simple as buying apples rather than bananas, and you'd be right. There are ways to reduce energy use around the house, but I suspect the main way people will respond is by buying a more energy-efficient model the next time they're replacing an appliance. If you think no amount of energy saving in the home is likely to bring about the degree of reduction in fossil fuel use we needed to achieve, you'd also be right. People have an automatic tendency to apply government moves such as this to themselves and their homes but, in fact, the relative price change is directed mainly at the big industrial users of electricity and, more particularly, the generators of electricity. It's when their existing power stations come to the end of their useful lives and are replaced by less-polluting generators that the big steps forward will be made. The government claims the changes it will make to the income tax scale - lifting the tax-free threshold from $6000 a year to $18,200 - is a major reform, meaning about a million people will no longer have to submit tax returns. Tony Abbott counters that it's a terrible change: ''This is the first time in a generation that marginal tax rates have been increased.'' The bottom tax rate of 15 per cent is to be increased to 19 per cent, and the second rate of 30 per cent increased to 32.5 per cent. Both sides are playing on the public's ignorance of the complexities of the tax system, in particular the operation of the ''low-income tax offset'' of $1500 a year, which lifts the present effective tax-free threshold from $6000 to $16,000, but is then clawed back after people's incomes exceed $30,000 a year, at the rate of 4˘ in the dollar. Under the new arrangement, this offset will be cut to $445 a year and its rate of withdrawal cut to 1.5˘ in the dollar. When you take this into account, Labor's grand reform becomes a minor reform. Most of the million people aren't paying tax under the present system, they just have to put in a return to claim the offset. As for Abbott, the change will involve no increase in anyone's effective marginal tax rate. All it means is that the hidden 4 per cent rate at which the offset is withdrawn will no longer be hidden. The carbon tax is neither as good as Gillard claims nor as bad as Abbott claims. Funny, that. Ross Gittins is The Sydney Morning Herald's economics editor. here's the link to the article http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...712-1hc2k.html the sky is not going to fall in. Statler |
||
15-07-2011, 05:01 PM | #303 | ||
GT
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 9,205
|
OMG !!!! I HAVE tried to keep up to date with this thread , but the reading and links require more time than 24 hours can give me .
conclusion . my understanding of human has diminished . there is lots of frustrated insanity about . i dont know whether anti psychotics work or are causing this twistedness . sits back and waits for ridicule on spelling errors and grammar. i can see it's possible tog get into a state of permanant dissarray here . i better stick to just eating breathing and sleeping . |
||
15-07-2011, 05:03 PM | #304 | |||
Budget Racer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,421
|
Quote:
__________________
12.1@112Mph 285rwkw on n2o Cleveland Power |
|||
15-07-2011, 05:08 PM | #305 | |||
Wirlankarra yanama
Join Date: May 2006
Location: God's Country
Posts: 2,103
|
Quote:
And in the interests of balance, here is an alternative perspective: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226094872101 THE one thing you need to know about Treasury's modelling of the carbon tax is this: it assumes that by 2016, the US and all the other developed economies that do not have carbon taxes or emissions trading systems in place will have them up and running. This implies that in next year's US presidential election, likely to be fought at a time of high unemployment, the winning candidate will campaign on the basis of introducing a carbon tax that will go from zero to $30 a tonne in a matter of months. And that tax will then not only get through Congress but in record time. Moreover, that feat accomplished, by 2021 China will sign up too, and with 14 per cent of the world's population and barely 20 per cent of world income, will agree to shoulder 34 to 35 per cent of the costs of global mitigation. As part of that deal, China's leadership will accept a fall in national living standards, relative to business as usual, of between 5 and 10 per cent, while per capita incomes in the far wealthier US and European Union decline by a fraction of that amount. And with China on board, the rest of the world will join the party. These assumptions are central to Treasury's analysis, not least because they ensure that by the time Australia moves to an ETS, there is a fully functioning world market for emissions permits. That world market makes it possible for permits bought overseas to contribute two-thirds of the mitigation we achieve during the period to 2020. In contrast, were the market as it is today, with more than 80 per cent of permit trading occurring within the EU, Australian demand for permits would significantly drive up prices, increasing Treasury's estimated abatement costs. The only uncertainty Treasury envisages with respect to global action is whether it might not prove even more ambitious in seeking cuts in emissions. There is, in other words, no likelihood of the world not reaching comprehensive, credible agreement, nor is there any possibility of backsliding from the strictly voluntary pledges made at Cancun. Why these assumptions are plausible, much less compelling, is never explained in Treasury's report. All it says by way of justification is that a "co-ordinated international policy framework is ultimately in all countries' best interests". Perhaps, but so are perpetual peace and global free trade. And history shows it is rarely wise to confuse aspirations for reality. Rather, sensible analysis requires examining what happens if one's hopes do not eventuate. That, however, is the one outcome Treasury does not consider. It discusses the scenario in which the world acts and we act with it and that in which the rest of the world takes vigorous action while Australia free-rides. But the scenario in which we act while our main competitors do not is never analysed. That this will be viewed as a glaring omission is plainly not lost on Treasury. It therefore advances a startling proposition: that "if global action is less than assumed, Australian mitigation costs will be lower, not higher, than reported". Taken at face value, such a claim seems implausible. After all, in the absence of global agreement, action by Australia would be an exercise in futility. As a result, even if unilateral cuts in emissions required fewer resources than needed to achieve comparable cuts on a co-ordinated basis, the fact they were pointless would mean their costs, properly defined, were greater, as good money was being poured down the drain. But Treasury's point may be subtler: that if we have decided to reduce emissions by some amount, regardless of whether it is futile or not to do so, we might use fewer resources in achieving it when we go it alone. This, Treasury suggests, is because buying permits overseas would be cheaper under unilateral action, as there would be less demand for them. Perhaps, but the supply of permits would also be far lower and the market in which they are traded less developed and poorly integrated. Additionally, Treasury argues, weaker global action would strengthen world demand for resources compared with Treasury's reference scenario. And indeed it would. But if we act and large parts of the world do not, more of that higher demand will shift to our untaxed or less taxed competitors. With resource prices higher than they would otherwise be, each tonne of coal thus displaced implies a greater loss of Australian income. As a result, Treasury's claim is hardly compelling. And the fact Treasury provides no modelling to support its assertions does not inspire confidence. Moreover, if we are indeed committed to reducing Australia's emissions, regardless of whether doing so will make any difference, the policy issue would be how that goal could be achieved at least cost. Imposing a large and steadily rising tax on our exports, as will happen under the government's plan, is surely unlikely to meet that test. Rather, the approach of former senior Treasury official and co-founder of Access Economics, Geoff Carmody, which involves a carbon tax that, like the GST, exempts exports but taxes imports, would seem a superior option. And Tony Abbott's plan, which does not tax exports to anywhere near the same extent as the government proposes, could also be far cheaper in a world where our main resource competitors do not follow our lead. But those are possibilities Treasury simply ignores. Yet Treasury's analysis, whatever its flaws, should focus us on a central question: how can it make sense to commit to an enormously costly reduction in emissions when, in the absence of comprehensive, global agreement, we have no reason to believe it will make any difference? Why should the 5 per cent target be a sacred cow, unchallenged as the prospects for international action recede? And if mitigation could merely lead to economic losses while leaving global emissions unchanged, would it not be better to instead devote greater resources to preparing for possible adaptation to climate change? Treasury's report does not address any of these issues. Rather, it starts from implausible assumptions to reach conclusions that are no less implausible for being rigorously derived. That may suit the government, which determined the scope of Treasury's work. But it is not what proper policy analysis requires. And it is not what the community, as it grapples with these issues, demands and can legitimately expect. |
|||
15-07-2011, 05:12 PM | #306 | |||
335 - STILL THE BOSS ...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melb East
Posts: 11,421
|
What a crock that article is .....
Quote:
What is going to happen with the ETS system comes in at 2015? How much money is going to go off shore? Who is going to massively profit from the trading of pieces of paper? Every way you look at it it is a crock .... it is a very bad thing and they have to realise it! There are way way way too many questions totally unanswered, theories totally untested and full of assumptions based on total guess work.
__________________
'73 Landau - 10.82 @ 131mph '11 FG GT335 - 12.43 @ 116mph '95 XG ute - 3 minutes, 21.14 @ 64mph 101,436 MEMBERS ......... 101,436 OPINIONS ..... What could possibly go wrong! Clevo Mafia [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] |
|||
15-07-2011, 05:20 PM | #307 | |||
GT
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 9,205
|
Quote:
and to put another perspective worry on it . there was a post back here that other countries are going to get involved in the emissions carbon tax trading scheme . this will exponentiate anything we are talking about here . |
|||
15-07-2011, 05:21 PM | #308 | ||
Rob
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Woodcroft S.A.
Posts: 21,656
|
its already more expensive to be environmentally friendly, just like its more expensive to eat healthy than not.
if you want to encourage people to use something, make it cheaper, rather than increase the price of everything else. |
||
15-07-2011, 05:38 PM | #309 | ||
.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,197
|
Isn't it funny that the people who are so passionate about this topic either only post about such things, or have a very low post count.
Word must be getting out that there are non-believers lurking here and reinforcements are needed. |
||
15-07-2011, 05:42 PM | #310 | ||||||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
I had a giggle reading another thread...some 'interesting' perspectives...but these were the ones that stood out (shortly before the thread was locked)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Funny that the changes they are suggesting now, is exactly what the 'global cooling' scientists were saying 36 years ago...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez Photo's by Sez |
||||||
15-07-2011, 05:52 PM | #311 | |||
IWCMOGTVM Club Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Suburbs Melbourne
Posts: 17,799
|
http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...715-1hhgg.html
Quote:
__________________
Daniel |
|||
15-07-2011, 05:55 PM | #312 | ||
Size it up
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
|
There's a bit of talk about nuclear power starting in this thread.
Does anybody know how much electricity generated by nuclear would cost compared to coal powered sparks? |
||
15-07-2011, 06:01 PM | #313 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez Photo's by Sez |
||
15-07-2011, 06:07 PM | #314 | |||
335 - STILL THE BOSS ...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melb East
Posts: 11,421
|
Quote:
__________________
'73 Landau - 10.82 @ 131mph '11 FG GT335 - 12.43 @ 116mph '95 XG ute - 3 minutes, 21.14 @ 64mph 101,436 MEMBERS ......... 101,436 OPINIONS ..... What could possibly go wrong! Clevo Mafia [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] |
|||
15-07-2011, 06:12 PM | #315 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 43
|
from today's Age
Aussie light bulbs slash power bills ... and step ladder usage Melbourne-based Brightgreen’s novel approach to industrial design – in a world of planned obsolescence, they actually make things last as long as they possibly can – could slash global power consumption, cut greenhouse gases, and make the company a lot of money. They’ve designed a range of LED down lights and replacement bulbs that use one fifth of the electricity to produce the same light output - until now, a major failing of LED lights. They fit into any 50-watt halogen assembly and work with any dimmer. The rated life of a halogen bulb is 2000 hours, or 12 months at six hours a day, according to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Brightgreen’s are rated for 70,000 hours, or 30 years of six-hour days. They have a five-year replacement guarantee. According to chief designer, David O’Driscoll, the designs, which involve four international patents, mean Brightgreen's customers might never have to change a light bulb. The company's DM900 range of down lights and its DR700 replacement globes have already picked up a large order from Germany, and are vying for a major contract in South Africa, which is spending a billion dollars to relieve chronic rolling blackouts. They are on show at Melbourne’s Building and Home Improvement Expo this weekend. At $120, the DM100s produce 900 lumens of light. They repay the purchase price in two years with power bill savings. The DR700s, which output 720 lumens, recover their $69 price tag within 18 months. There are an estimated 68 million halogen downlights in Australian homes accounting for roughly 25 per cent of the nation’s annual domestic power bill. The Brightgreen technology could cut that to 5 per cent, making a huge dent in Australia’s carbon emissions. Brightgreen, based in Collingwood, has a design team of five engineers. President of the Illuminating Engineering Society of Australia and New Zealand, Steve Coyne, works with them as a consultant physicist. Chief designer, David O’Driscoll says the company and its philosophy was formulated after four years working as contract designers for major companies. “We were continually being told to design things that would break in about two years. We’d tell them that we could make them last for much longer than that, but the sales department kept telling us to ‘Make it break’." O'Driscoll, for whom the enduring quality of the Hill's Hoist is something of a touchstone, describes the experience as “highly dispiriting.” Hel says that the philosophy of planned obsolescence, which started with the father of industrial design, Raymond Loewy, in the US in the 1930s, has reached a pinnacle with the lighting industry. “We’ve been able to make long-lasting light bulbs for years now, but the manufacturers think it’s bad for business.” And although Brightgreen uses Macs running Windows under Parallel for their design work, he says Apple is a master of the technique. “Apple has given us the ultimate: downloadable obsolescence. They release a new operating system that’s designed for more powerful hardware a few months before they come up with a new model. People download the update, and suddenly the old phones slow down to the point that users can’t wait to replace them.” Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-lif...#ixzz1S9wMU6mV |
||
15-07-2011, 06:41 PM | #316 | |||
Wirlankarra yanama
Join Date: May 2006
Location: God's Country
Posts: 2,103
|
Quote:
But to point out the obvious, people can use multiple identities to hijack debates, these droids usually get found out. I wouldn't be surprised if organisations such as GetUp have members on fordforums who feel it their duty to obfuscate, frustrate discussion and shutdown debate and free speech (kinda sounds like what a certain Senator from Tasmania wants to do...) |
|||
15-07-2011, 06:55 PM | #317 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
Then you have the Tasmania's who for the most part are powered by Hydro schemes...but they're still going to be affected, the same as everyone else, even though their power comes from 'cleaner' sources...why?
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez Photo's by Sez |
|||
15-07-2011, 07:16 PM | #318 | |||||
Size it up
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
edit: sorry that was last time I saw it a while back, just checked and it's now worth a quarter of its peak. What if we opt for hydro... oh wait, I forgot dams are the antichrist. Last edited by WMD351; 15-07-2011 at 07:31 PM. |
|||||
15-07-2011, 07:26 PM | #319 | ||
Steve
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sth East Qld
Posts: 1,284
|
This is a tax to bail out the Government who decided to spend billions on ill conceived schemes during the GFC. Nothing more ,nothing less.They tried the mining tax,but the mining heavies bluffed them. Now we have Chinese mining firms buying farming land hand over fist to secure potential mineral & gas deposits. I read it every week in the financial revue.The Government should have stuck to their guns on the mining tax.Look at the Nathan Tinklers,Clive Palmers , etc,of this world.They are laughing all the way to the bank . There Companies could afford a mining tax no risk. What are they going to do ? Close up shop - no way.
What about the amount of waste in our Governments -overseas junkets,Parliamentary pensions, hair brained schemes at all levels of Governance , christ ,bloody millions spent in Brisbane on hire pushbikes , please ,what a waste of a few million. And all these so called carbon polluters ,what is the EPA doing ? Besides taxing them , how do they expect these Companies to improve on their technologies to reduce their carbon footprint? Who is going to fund the R&D for new methods of production. The majority of us do the right thing and our belts are already tight,making us pay indirectly on cost of goods is bollocks. We need to make a stand and voice our opinion and rid this country of the buffoons who run it. Bob Brown is kidding himself , this government is held over a barrell by the green vote. Ludicrous.
__________________
Currently no Fords . 2005 Statesman International 5.7, Mazda 2 and a Hilux. Former Fords: 2010 Ford Escape 2007 BF11 GT, TE50 Series 1 ,AU V8 One Tonner ,EL Falcon Wagon, ED Fairmont , EB Falcon Series 1. Mk 2 Cortina Company Fords : 3 BA Falcons , EB 11 Falcon Wagon , Ford F350 351 V8. |
||
15-07-2011, 07:37 PM | #320 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
Solar works, but the problem is it's the strongest at its source - so installing solar panels on your roof is one thing, but putting thousands of solar panels in the middle of Australia is pretty pointless...unless you're only planning on powering Alice Springs... They have wind turbines down on the south west coast of vic, and aside from being an incredible eyesore don't seem to have done much. There is one wind turbine (or possibly two, I can't remember which one) powering Rottnest Island, but I don't think it actually creates as much power as it's dirtier counterpart coal.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez Photo's by Sez |
|||
15-07-2011, 07:42 PM | #321 | |||
.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,197
|
Quote:
|
|||
15-07-2011, 07:59 PM | #322 | ||
Size it up
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
|
The solar panels on the roof is a pretty good one.
Typical that the powers that be are screwing up something that actually works. http://www.mysolarprice.com.au/newsf...ebate-reduced/ First they started neutering the installation rebate ahead of schedule, and now there's the constant threat that they'll reduce the feed back price they give you. Seems like they're trying their best to make it not worth having. |
||
15-07-2011, 08:12 PM | #323 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez Photo's by Sez |
|||
15-07-2011, 08:42 PM | #324 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
|
Quote:
|
|||
15-07-2011, 09:24 PM | #325 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
I think it worked out that the turbine itself has the span of a boeing from wing tip to wing tip (or something like that). Just not sure on how long lasting the produced energy is though. I don't know if it's a close range or long range thing...I know fairly recently in the UK it came to light that almost half of the applications for planning permits for wind turbines were rejected... The thing is, there's so many different types of wind turbines...it's not funny... http://www.energymatters.com.au/wind...nes-c-149.html You've really got to ask yourself why these types of energies aren't being harnessed if reducing our carbon footprint is for the 'greater good'... I'm sure the error of my knowledge will be pointed out soon enough...I can smell the stench of an inferior superiority complex on the horizon...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez Photo's by Sez Last edited by SEZ213; 15-07-2011 at 09:40 PM. |
|||
15-07-2011, 10:02 PM | #326 | ||
I am Groot
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burnett Heads, Qld
Posts: 6,840
|
Well as far as wind farms go more are going in than you think, in the UK aswell. The company i work for (Swire Pacific Offshore) has a subsidiary called Swire Blue Ocean and they have just ordered the construction of a new wind farm installation vessel from Samsung Heavy Industries with options on one or two more.....these things are worth millions...
The trend to moving wind farms to the shallow areas offshore has picked up pace lately, especially around the UK & Europe.... Edit: Here's a computer generated pic of the one on order...
__________________
.. McLaren F1 Dick Johnson Racing "Those were the days when the cars were cars, they weren't built out of an Ikea pack like they are now and clothed in plastic; they were real cars." John Bowe Last edited by DJR-351; 15-07-2011 at 10:13 PM. |
||
15-07-2011, 10:09 PM | #327 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Is that due to the possible noise effects of the turbines? Or better wind opportunity?
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez Photo's by Sez |
||
15-07-2011, 10:10 PM | #328 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 598
|
Quote:
you are wrong....very,very wrong. I have an 8.5kw system in Victoria and I produce more than I use. It cost 40 thousand dollars to self install. The government gave us a 50% tax break to buy it as part of the stimulus package for businesses...and fully depreciable. All my associates bought luxury cars as the stimulus package, I bought solar panels instead....it was a no brainer.... With depreciation and GST refund it is paid for in 20 months. We will never...ever...pay for electricity...not one cent as long as we live. In fact we currently get approx $500 a quarter credit....in WINTER No brown coal needed here. |
|||
15-07-2011, 10:18 PM | #329 | |||
I am Groot
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burnett Heads, Qld
Posts: 6,840
|
Quote:
__________________
.. McLaren F1 Dick Johnson Racing "Those were the days when the cars were cars, they weren't built out of an Ikea pack like they are now and clothed in plastic; they were real cars." John Bowe |
|||
15-07-2011, 10:25 PM | #330 | |||
335 - STILL THE BOSS ...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melb East
Posts: 11,421
|
Quote:
Price for electricity in our house (at the moment) is approx $2000 per year ..... thats 20 years before I start saving anything ...... even if I get a rebate still a long time for a return ..... and that's if I stay here for that long which I most probably wont ..... then start again with the investment.
__________________
'73 Landau - 10.82 @ 131mph '11 FG GT335 - 12.43 @ 116mph '95 XG ute - 3 minutes, 21.14 @ 64mph 101,436 MEMBERS ......... 101,436 OPINIONS ..... What could possibly go wrong! Clevo Mafia [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] |
|||