FYI: Tax rates going up

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

In your opinion. You could not definitively say that Julia Gillard had every intention of introducing the tax when she made that statement. That's what it would need to be for her to lie. It may have been a mistake for her to make that statement, but I don't believe she lied.

Not an opinion ..... I am sorry but just cannot see the logic in that as I read it a few times trying to see it but I just cannot.

Nope .... read it again. Very hard to qualify a lie

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

It appears to me that the opinions expressed in this topic are more based on hatred and emotion than on common sense, and this may well be a result of the uncertainty of how the carbon tax will affect people. It's certainly not helped by the misinformation and scare campaign being waged by the opposition.

Few points on that one .....

Scare campaign? I dont understand this either and have heard a few people say it. How is it scaring people? The facts are out ..... if they cannot be supported so be it. You can have opposing views, ask questions and if these are answered end of story .... done and dusted. But they are not being answered. Maybe they are scary questions?

Not based on hatred ..... based on a massive concern for a tax that no one understands .... even those who invented it and with an out come that is all theory, no substance and with a lot more to loose (so it seems) to what is to be gained (as it is all guess work)

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

It has been very one sided, and I suspect many who don't agree with the views expressed in the first few pages of this thread (especially) would be reluctant to get involved for fear of personal attack on an alternative view, something that started to occur once some alternative views were expressed. I see that you responded sarcastically (and inappropriately for a moderator) to a previous comment, so I don't know how you haven't expressed a view either way.

For a mod>? Sorry if I cannot have an opinion and if I happen to sound or appear to be sarcastic ..... well it shows that we are human and just like you and everyone else! Now there's something that many wouldn't have realized! There are other mods and admin and if I come across as having to much excitement in a post I will be pulled up ...... just like all the others out there!

And as far as that post goes ..... What more could be said but thanks.

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

The devil is in the detail, and you're correct in that how this is implemented could be a problem. It is inevitable that the cost of living will increase, but the only real fact is that this will happen regardless of a carbon tax. From what I've seen of the details of the new tax, the cost of living will not increase for alot of people, although this is being actively misreported by some sections of the media.

Yep .... devil is in the detail ..... and no one knows the detail. Even little things like ..... "Who are the secret 500?" And why is it being misreported when NO ONE knows how much this will effect everyone in the longer short term? LOTS of questions being asked and nothing being answered. Cant believe so many agree with it without questioning .......

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

Sounds like something Tony Abbott has said, and I take everything he says with a bag of salt (not just a grain).

No it wasnt ...... and wasnt a politician.

But you can believe ... "There will be no carbon tax while .......... "? because it wasn't a lie .... just a mistruth?

[cosworthfreak]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Not an opinion ..... I am sorry but just cannot see the logic in that as I read it a few times trying to see it but I just cannot.

Nope .... read it again. Very hard to qualify a lie




Few points on that one .....

Scare campaign? I dont understand this either and have heard a few people say it. How is it scaring people? The facts are out ..... if they cannot be supported so be it. You can have opposing views, ask questions and if these are answered end of story .... done and dusted. But they are not being answered. Maybe they are scary questions?

Not based on hatred ..... based on a massive concern for a tax that no one understands .... even those who invented it and with an out come that is all theory, no substance and with a lot more to loose (so it seems) to what is to be gained (as it is all guess work)




For a mod>? Sorry if I cannot have an opinion and if I happen to sound or appear to be sarcastic ..... well it shows that we are human and just like you and everyone else! Now there's something that many wouldn't have realized! There are other mods and admin and if I come across as having to much excitement in a post I will be pulled up ...... just like all the others out there!


Yep .... devil is in the detail ..... and no one knows the detail. Even little things like ..... "Who are the secret 500?" And why is it being misreported when NO ONE knows how much this will effect everyone in the longer short term? LOTS of questions being asked and nothing being answered. Cant believe so many agree with it without questioning .......

No it wasnt ...... and wasnt a politician.

But you can believe ... "There will be no carbon tax while .......... "? because it wasn't a lie .... just a mistruth?

None of your posts make any real sense, and if you can't get past the fact that Julia Gillard didn't necessarily lie, then there's no point wasting my time. You're obviously caught up in the oppositions misinformation/scare campaign. Lets face it, it's what they do best.

Tony Abbott has lied and misrepresented the truth more than any other politician that I've seen, and yet I don't see you raising any issue about him.

And by the way, I'm not believing without questioning. The truth is that something needs to be done about carbon emissions (and any toxic emission for that matter), and I'm not stupid enough to ignore the science.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Scott

We voted on a GST and we got it. This time, we voted on NO CARBON TAX and we got it.

You say same, I say not.

Scott you under the illusion that the results of the last election represent a vote that Australian's dont want a carbon tax?

so a vote for Julia was no carbon tax and a vote for Tony was also for no carbon tax.
You voted for Tony and he has held true to his promise, unfortunately the party you voted for isnt in power, its a bit much claiming you've been deceived when your vote didnt go that way, that's why Im keen to hear from any one on this forum who voted labor and feels deceived......somehow I dont think they exist?

Personally, Labor didnt get my vote because they said there would be no tax on carbon and like many others felt disillusioned with labor and had no choice but to vote independent or green.

Did Julia lie?, I dont really care, she's done the right thing for us, whether myopic people realise that or not.
But if we hold true to the conspiracy theories, she didnt!

"There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead", well according to the experts around here Bob Brown is running the government....Ill let you quibble about that one.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Scott you under the illusion that the results of the last election represent a vote that Australian's dont want a carbon tax?

so a vote for Julia was no carbon tax and a vote for Tony was also for no carbon tax.
You voted for Tony and he has held true to his promise, unfortunately the party you voted for isnt in power, its a bit much claiming you've been deceived when your vote didnt go that way, that's why Im keen to hear from any one on this forum who voted labor and feels deceived......somehow I dont think they exist?

Personally, Labor didnt get my vote because they said there would be no tax on carbon and like many others felt disillusioned with labor and had no choice but to vote independent or green.

Did Julia lie?, I dont really care, she's done the right thing for us, whether myopic people realise that or not.
But if we hold true to the conspiracy theories, she didnt!

"There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead", well according to the experts around here Bob Brown is running the government....Ill let you quibble about that one.

The lie is what's getting most people though - the understanding that a pre-election campaign will be full of unfilled promises is standard for most people - but as Abbott has already said, if she did in fact just 'change her mind' which coincidently was not what I heard last night when she was talking to a concerned constituent, she should have really done it the right way and asked the appropriate questions of the public - she's committed political suicide, whether she likes it or not...

[landau460]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Scott you under the illusion that the results of the last election represent a vote that Australian's dont want a carbon tax?

so a vote for Julia was no carbon tax and a vote for Tony was also for no carbon tax.
You voted for Tony and he has held true to his promise, unfortunately the party you voted for isnt in power, its a bit much claiming you've been deceived when your vote didnt go that way, that's why Im keen to hear from any one on this forum who voted labor and feels deceived......somehow I dont think they exist?

Personally, Labor didnt get my vote because they said there would be no tax on carbon and like many others felt disillusioned with labor and had no choice but to vote independent or green.

Did Julia lie?, I dont really care, she's done the right thing for us, whether myopic people realise that or not.
But if we hold true to the conspiracy theories, she didnt!

"There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead", well according to the experts around here Bob Brown is running the government....Ill let you quibble about that one.

That's the problem to many have this same atitude of not caring and letting the government do as they please not work for my money.

I agree lieing is the best for our country and blatent at that!

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by prydey

the idea that putting a tax on something will encourage people to use less of it is a joke to start with.

Of course it is, taxing cigarettes has never encouraged people to give up smoking, has it?

[Trevor 57]

How Tony (R)Abbott really feels about a carbon tax

[SB076]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Fair point. Perhaps my post wasn't directed at you.



Again, fair point and a vaild distinction. I was more referring to the fact that GST wasn't popular for a while, but now its just business as usual. I suspect it will be the same with the Carbon tax, despite its implementation against all promises.

As for the current government being overwhelmingly rejected, thats obviously not entirely true. I could have said the same about the opposition had they managed to snare power. Although I agree with you on their future prospects.




Well they'd get hit with the carbon tax on the freight over here wouldn't they? Foreign shipping company... probably not, I dont know. This is definitely an achilles' heel in our setup; the possible flight of industry overseas. Australian companies need to distinguish and promote the benefits of Australian made. Consumers need to buy with a social conscience. (Pie in the sky, I know)

Anyway, I dont wish to discuss the carbon tax here as its a fruitless exercise - everyone has made up their mind. I just made my previous post because I'm certain some on here are clueless to the theory behind how a carbon tax might be effective.

Its been tried and failed before (buy Australian made etc, people typically look at the price and if they can get a similiar product cheaper than they buy that) I dont think you can expect consumers to have a social conscience (as an example where did your clothes come from? Did they come form a foreign sweet shop? - not saying they did but how many people can truthfully answer that question? I know I cant and I try to support Aussie made products where ever possible)

Discussion I beleive is good, its good to hear other peoples view points then we can gain a better understanding of the problem at hand. Everyones opinion is valid and people have the ability to change their mind. No one knows the full implications of the carbon tax (not even those responsible for it) I am opposed to it as I beleive it will do nothing for the global enviroment, it will send some business (and jobs off shore, something we cant afford) and ulitmately it will cost each and every one of us a lot more than what is currently being suggested by the government.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Of course it is, taxing cigarettes has never encouraged people to give up smoking, has it?

That may just be the worst comparison you could possibly draw!

People have been paid to keep smoking have they?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

None of your posts make any real sense, and if you can't get past the fact that Julia Gillard didn't necessarily lie, then there's no point wasting my time. You're obviously caught up in the oppositions misinformation/scare campaign. Lets face it, it's what they do best.

Tony Abbott has lied and misrepresented the truth more than any other politician that I've seen, and yet I don't see you raising any issue about him.

And by the way, I'm not believing without questioning. The truth is that something needs to be done about carbon emissions (and any toxic emission for that matter), and I'm not stupid enough to ignore the science.

I wont get involved in the politics of it (as its against the sites terms and conditions) But I am curious as to how this carbon tax will reduce emissions? If we simply move production and business offshore we haven't done anything to reduce emissions and in actual fact due to the increase in logistics (freight) we have actually added to global emissions.

The most enviromentally friendly way of producing any goods (be it food or manufactured goods) is to manufacture them as close as possible to their final destination (the customer) This cuts down on waste and transport. The other part of the equation is to produce any goods requires energy (typically electricity) So if we provide business in Australia with cheap clean energy we can reduce our emissions.

Now I understand peoples concerns regarding reducing emissions so I have one more question for you. What is more important, reducing emissions and saving the enviroment, or faster internet speeds? How is it that we can find $55 billion to fund faster internet speeds but we can't find that amount of money to save the enviroment (by either investing in renewable energy, efficient public transportation, improved roads or clean coal technology, which could then be sold throughout the world and used to great effect in countries like Africa where they have an abuncance of coal, but are told they cant use it as they need to invest in renewables which they dont have the funds for)

[MAD]

One thing I dont understand is why its ok to give leniancy to developing countries (China, India) but it's not ok to give leniancy to an already developed country that makes sweet FA difference to the worlds emissions.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Scott you under the illusion that the results of the last election represent a vote that Australian's dont want a carbon tax?

Were you underground during the last election?

Originally Posted by sudszy

its a bit much claiming you've been deceived when your vote didnt go that way,

I've been deceived because she lied to me. What is so bloody hard to grasp about that? How about the independent preferences she got from committing to no carbon tax? Wake up.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Personally, Labor didnt get my vote because they said there would be no tax on carbon and like many others felt disillusioned with labor and had no choice but to vote independent or green.

So you believed her too eh?

Originally Posted by sudszy

Did Julia lie?, I dont really care, she's done the right thing for us, whether myopic people realise that or not.

The very fact that you don't care makes me hate the fact we have compulsory voting in this country.

Originally Posted by sudszy

"There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead", well according to the experts around here Bob Brown is running the government.

Experts around here? It is on show for all to see. The Government of this country being bullied by a very small minority - a party so obtuse that their own leader is worried about what he has set loose on this country.

[Wise]

Ok so question on what everyone is going to do about it?

Now that the prices on a lot of things (we don't exactly know what) are set to rise because of the carbon tax, how are you going to combat it?

It was suggested to me that turning your house to solar power and feeding it back in to the grid and receiving credits from the electricity company would net you enough to pay for itself in 18 months, by which time the carbon tax will have pushed prices of (things we don't know yet) up and you would come out ahead.

That was based on a 20 to 25k solar implementation at your house.

These schemes are creating ways for us to benefit financially but no one seems to take advantage of them

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by Scott

That may just be the worst comparison you could possibly draw!

People have been paid to keep smoking have they?

Well you could ask one Mr Shane Warne about that!!!

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Wise

It was suggested to me that turning your house to solar power and feeding it back in to the grid and receiving credits from the electricity company would net you enough to pay for itself in 18 months, by which time the carbon tax will have pushed prices of (things we don't know yet) up and you would come out ahead.

That was based on a 20 to 25k solar implementation at your house.

These schemes are creating ways for us to benefit financially but no one seems to take advantage of them

Estimates I've had have reflected 7-10yr payback which I concede doesn't seem to marry up with others thoughts. I have not progressed because of this, because I don't trust the Govt to honor its commitment and the price for installing Solar will crash heavily in the near future as the deals stop and smarter technologies take hold.

I'd really like Tata to hurry up with my new roof TBH.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Wise

Ok so question on what everyone is going to do about it?

Now that the prices on a lot of things (we don't exactly know what) are set to rise because of the carbon tax, how are you going to combat it?

It was suggested to me that turning your house to solar power and feeding it back in to the grid and receiving credits from the electricity company would net you enough to pay for itself in 18 months, by which time the carbon tax will have pushed prices of (things we don't know yet) up and you would come out ahead.

That was based on a 20 to 25k solar implementation at your house.

These schemes are creating ways for us to benefit financially but no one seems to take advantage of them

I have a solar system, the payback isnt that quick. But I dont have a system that size (2.1 kwh) Keep in mind on a day like today (overcast bit of drizzle) I will be lucky if I am putting out 500 wh

I dont beleive its possible to get $20,000 to $25,000 back in 18 months. Even if you sell all your electricity back to the grid at the premium tarriff ($0.60 per Kwh) you need to generate around 90kwh per day over and above anything you use on average all year round (winter and summe) Happy for someone to check my figures, but it doesnt seem right to me.

The other problem is not a lot of house holds could afford to spend $20,000 to $25,000 and I dont beleive many would have enough roof space to take such a large system.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by Wise

Ok so question on what everyone is going to do about it?

Now that the prices on a lot of things (we don't exactly know what) are set to rise because of the carbon tax, how are you going to combat it?

It was suggested to me that turning your house to solar power and feeding it back in to the grid and receiving credits from the electricity company would net you enough to pay for itself in 18 months, by which time the carbon tax will have pushed prices of (things we don't know yet) up and you would come out ahead.

That was based on a 20 to 25k solar implementation at your house.

These schemes are creating ways for us to benefit financially but no one seems to take advantage of them

Thats all well and good for those of us who rent.....
I own a house, which I rent out, and rent myself. How would putting solar on the house I own benefit me? And beleive me, I think the idea of solar is wonderful, and I would have it in a heartbeat if I was living in my house, but to think all Australians live in their own homes is very wrong.

[StrokedXT]

Anyone who thinks this tax is good for Australia is very misguided and ususally are in the group that are going to get overcompensated.

The whole thing makes no sense - govt taxes a business for carbon - business passes on the cost to consumers - govt hands money from business to the consumer - the consumer then buys from business again and the circle continues - the only people that loose out are those who get no compensation and businesses selling non essentials, they are effectively handing their hard earned to those on lower incomes.

How in Gods name is that going to achieve anything other than wealth distribution to the lower classes, its ******** and what some people seem to miss is its not about labor or liberal being in power this was coming anyway if the libs had formed govt, Bob was quite clear after the election Tony had agreed he was willing to do anything bar an nbn to get control of parliament.

And that tobacco comment by big trev was not in anyway remotely relevant to the carbon tax and how it is being implemented.

Major tax incentives for business to go green and invest in technology is what will make a difference to our future carbon output not this do nothing socialist wealth distribution scheme being disguised as an environmental initiative.

[naddis01]

You can't pay for a 20k solar system in 18 months.

[cheap]

Todays pearl...

These details are in Treasury's own modelling on the CO2 tax!!!

According to treasury, in order to meet the target of 80% of 2000 levels by 2050, treasury predicts that 434 million tonnes of abatement (permits to pollute) would have to be sourced from overseas.

According to treasury, they price CO2 at $131 per tonne by 2050, which means $57,000,000,000 per year ($57 billion) dollars in todays terms going into foreign hands.... surely not ?? !!!

That is money not available to do "stuff", for example health care, schools, pensions and so on. How's everyones compensation looking?

These are treasury figures. Which begs the question how does this tax work?

No doubt the same CO2 tax advocates will mention that there will be some as a yet non existent technology which will miraculously come to Australia's rescue - capable of producing thousands of MW with little CO2 (oh that would be nuclear ).

Of course the cynic in me might think that with this CO2 tax going live in 2012, that by 2018 there will be so few industries left in Australia that there would be no need to purchase these vast quantities of abatements - problem solved.

This tax becomes a bigger economic/social disaster each day, heck even the mainstream media is finally starting to ask questions

[StrokedXT]

They could probably fuel all australias energy needs with that 57billion if they used it to go nuclear.

Just shows its good nothing to do with going green and everything to do with wealth distribution.

[Auslandau]

This tax becomes a bigger economic/social disaster each day, heck even the mainstream media is finally starting to ask questions

NO. You cannot ask questions! Read above and to question is being biased or ignorant! Acceptance only is the way to go. Accept the science and things will be fine. Follow the leader with blind faith as they know best. A lie isn't a lie and we need to follow unquestionably.

[Tuddy200]

So I cannot compare this to the tax on cigarettes but;

How about Victorian Speed Cameras?

[ltd]

To the proponents of the tax, I'll proffer my argument.

Firstly, C02 is a trace gas which comprises one molecule of carbon, 2 molecules of oxygen. Without it, there would be no plant life on this earth and therefore no animals (no plants means no food for animals to eat).
It currently represents 0.0385% or 385 parts per million (ppm) of the earths atmosphere, and in the past has been as high as 30% millions of years ago according to drilled ice core samples. Now, of the C02 in the atmosphere, man attributes 3%, the other 97% attributed by natural causes (photosynthesis, expiration, fires, volcanoes etc).

The ecotards and intelligentsia of this world, have decided to pick on C02 in the name of taxation and socialism. That is, this harmless trace gas of which life depends upon they want to reduce (apparently) based on the fraudulent movie made by a very fat and out of work ex vice-president who has a fetish for masseuses. The movie he made; "A very convenient con" has made the creator a multi-billionaire with a fleet of 7 private jets, numerous mansions as well as a number of companies of which many are green technologies.

Further, Fat Al has a carbon permit trading company named "Generation Investment Management" of which he buys carbon offsets so he doesn't look like a hypocrite. Problem is, as the owner of this company he buys carbon offsets and pays ostensibly, himself. This ultimate hypocrite says that it's OK he has a carbon footprint 50 times the size of the average American, because he buys offsets. Gore doesn't buy offsets, he buys stock in his company GIM.
So, what does GIM do? Well, they invest in and try to buy companies that are about to cash in on global warming. What that means, is that Gore who got a C- in science, is selling the global frauding in order to drum up business for his investment company. Further, the SEC in the USA was going to investigate fat Al, but Bambi ordered them off in 2008 as GIM have spent a great deal of money getting Bambi into office, and are prepared to put up hundreds of millions for his reelection bid.

Starting to get the picture? There's proponents of the global warming fraud which has seen companies spring up, and the worldwide face of it is someone who stands to gain the most financially should his message be enacted into policy. Further, they've enlisted support from the corrupt, defunct and very socialist UN who have been fighting for legitimacy, even after being embarrassed many a time and in many wars by their stance on despots such as Mugabe and other member nations. Surely the Agenda 21 designers would give the whole global ice age/global warming/climate change movement credence right? Wrong. The UN IPCC has been nothing but a farce from the beginning, and as the "League of Nations" publicly pronounced that Hitler wouldn't invade Europe. They've been drastically wrong before and a marketing ****fest extravaganza since the IPCC report on climate change has been debunked. Firstly, it was promised that 1700 scientists agreed.

Later it was found out that it was actually only 90 odd scientists, who would peer review eachothers chapters. Essentially, everyone agreed to agree to agree with eachother, and eachother. What they didn't want to tell you though, is that in the final draft only two agreed on the conclusions in the models presented, and people like Robert Mann (of East Anglia and hockey stick graph fame) who couldn't get the models to work in the way he wanted decided to botch them to reach his conclusions. Robert Mann is the last to be trusted.
Still, the UN banged on about it and years later, people spoke out. The scientists who allegedly unanymously agreed on the climate models started speaking of the flaws, then the East Anglia scandal of how to hide the decline in temperature increases broke. Robert Mann at first denied, then admitted the emails were indeed his, and his models were proven to be wrong. Further scientists spoke out about it, including Richard Lintzen. He is arguably the worlds leading authority on climate, and even he says the climate tax will do nothing and that the world has not warmed. Tim Flannery who is the poster boy for the climate change movement has as recently as last week admitted that Richard Lintzen is very credible.

So, where does that leave us? Well, after Copenhagen was declared a farce and all the prepositions to enact the New World Order fell over, it was promised that it would be revisited the following year in Cancun. Greg Combet went over with the Govco credit card in hand, and promised to pay the UN 599 million Australian Dollars for reparations for being a carbon rich nation. No other nations were dumb enough to sign up to this wholesale sellout of our sovereignty, except Australia. Since then, China has pulled out of cap and trade, the USA has pulled out, and the Chicago ETS exchange has been bankrupt three times. Indeed, the world en-large embraced the left by electing socialist governments which have proven to be disastrous. Now, with the world baying for the blood of those which have destroyed our prosperity for some fanciful greenist utopia, people like president Bambi and Julia Gillard are less popular than ever.
Resultantly, we now have a government debt of over 200 billion dollars, and with projects being announced on the fly with such things as the NBN which hasn't even been so far scrutinised with something so simple as a cost benefit analysis. The carbon tax is another disaster. Firstly, the assumptions are based on the premise that business will bear the cost and factors such as employment will remain constant. It's also based on consumer spending improving and the economy recovering. It's flawed, and will see many businesses shut up shop and head overseas or close. It will also see many people unemployed, as businesses such as car making become unviable. Towns will lose their livelihood, and even people like Greens senator Christine Milne admit that places like Whyalla will be wiped out by the tax.

So, what can you do about it? Well, the 16th August sees a massive anti carbon tax rally on the steps of Parliament house in Canberra, where there will be numerous celebrities as well as numerous ministers coming out to address the crowds. Go to http://www.nocarbontax.com.au to register your interest.
Why Tuesday the 16th? That's when parliament sits for the first time after Julia's carbon tax plan was announced.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by sudszy

This explains why excess co2 isnt a good thing, if you want more detail, (like which wavelengths of Ir cause resonance in the co2 molecule), there is info on that out there too.

my apologies, left out the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP-tg4atr5M

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ltd

The ecotards and intelligentsia of this world, have decided to pick on C02 in the name of taxation and socialism. That is, this harmless trace gas of which life depends upon they want to reduce (apparently) based on the fraudulent movie made by a very fat and out of work ex vice-president who has a fetish for masseuses

No its not based on Al Gore's movie, but if you rely on the cinema for your info its understandable how you came to that conclusion.

Its actually based on the work of Fourier(1824), Tyndall (1859), Arrhenius (1896) Lotka (1925) and so on.

Barry Jones(arguably one of the smartest and most respected persons to have walked on the planet)(that's ecotard intelligentsia for those with their head in the sand) puts together an excellent piece concerning this recently:http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...630-1gsuj.html

or see a more detailed timeline at:

http://www.livescience.com/1292-hist...e-science.html


The science of why CO2 has been picked on, is simply explained here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP-tg4atr5M, of course if you feel it is a little too pedestrian for you, I can recommend more advanced futher reading.

[Trevor 57]

[StrokedXT]

I don't dispute that what we are doing on earth is causing damage, in my opinion anyone who can't in some way shape or form is delusional.

I do dispute that a socialist wealth redistribution is the way to help or achieve anything.

[cheap]

Furter madness..

The chief of Macquarie Generation, Russel Skelton, said in Tuesday’s Australian that it would take 3,500 turbines to replace the generator at Bayswater, NSW.

I had a look at the consequences of replacing Hazelwood, in the Latrobe Valley, with wind power, a measure being contemplated by the Government as part of its direct action plan for CO2 emissions reductions.

The figures are mind boggling. First is the cost of the buyout of Hazelwood. Probably about $3b.

Second is the cost of the replacement turbines. Hazelwood is 1470mw. ( say 1500mw for simple sums ). A standard 3mw turbine costs about $7m. ( windustry.org ) That would be 500 towers for nominal capacity of 1500mw. But, given that the average output of these devices is only 1/4 of the nameplate capacity, (or less ), a total of at least 2000 towers would be needed to replace Hazelwood.

Bayswater is bigger than Hazelwood, so Skelton’s figure for Bayswater is probably right.

And 2000 turbines at $7m each works out to $14b! This is 40 windfarms with 50 turbines each, scattered around Victoria.

Thirdly, since the wind farms will spend half their time supplying less than their average output ( by definition), the system will need open cycle gas turbine backup. And backup for even 1/3 of the windfarms capacity will require at least a 500mw of gas turbine generation. This will cost maybe $1.3b, or more. Origin just built one at Mortlake.

Then comes the cost of the gas supply infrastructure, and connection costs to the electricity grid. In total, close to $2b.

Finally comes the cost of the grid connection for the 40 dispersed windfarms. At least another $1b.

So the final cost to replace Hazelwood with wind and gas is 3+14+ 2+1= $20 billion! This is more than the whole Latrobe Valley generating system is worth! Where on earth is this sort of money going to come from? And what will be the price of power with such a monumental amount of capital to service?

And here’s the kicker. The cost of abatement. Assuming that the 16mtpa of current emissions from Hazelwood are foregone, (and not counting the gas that will be used in the scheme anyway), the cost of abatement is $1,350/tonne! This is all madness.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So a mere $20,000,000,000 ($20 billion) to replace just one nasty coal power station. Lets hope he's include maintenance costs for 2000 turbines or those inconsequential bird strikes in his calculations.

[SB076]

Sudszy - how do you think the carbon tax will reduce global emissions?
I am not interested in politics of it all, but I am interested to here someone state how a carbon tax will reduce global emissions?