how is carbon tax gonna work ?

[F Murtz]

no one wrote:

if the carbon tax does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce pollutants ?

ummmmm IT WONT !!!

what ever businesses are making now , they are gonna continue to make , and
there fore make the same amount of pollutants.its just a scam for the
government to get more money .

isnt it funny ?// you can make as much pollution as you want as long as
you pay for it..

The govt is going to give some back to the people so that they can
afford the big increases that companies will charge so as to get back
the tax instead of having to change their ways.

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:45:48 +1000, "Vox" <VoxPoop@spammail.com>
wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:07:54 +1000, atec77 <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 10/07/2011 10:49 PM, Dennis wrote:
On 10/07/2011 7:03 PM, no one wrote:
Marky, since the cost of electricity has increased substantially do
you turn your lights off more or only run your a/c when its really
necessary?
This last 1/4 our bill read practically the same amount yet rose 17%
guess what I said and then realised the carbon tax wont help us part
from charging more than it should for sfa performance , 10% more
power bill does not happy me make
Labor will fail again and again and again whilst in office , time
for an election

Yeah... as though the Libs will remove the tax when in a position to
do so. LOL. Wake up!! Abbott is simply being opportunistic and getting
a free and easy ride opposing this at the moment.

I hate Labor as much as I hate the Libs and Greens.

Hey, don't lump The Greens with LIB/LAB .

The ALP & NLP are in lock step appeasing the wants of the corporate world.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
THEY ARE NOT THERE TO SERVE THE VOTING PUBLIC.

There is a BIG difference between The Greens and the rest.

The Greens oppose,

* The continuation in an open ended war in Afghanistan and anywhere else
America decides to invade.

* The buy up (investment) of Australia of foreign multinationals (selling
the farms to
foreigners)

* The northern territory racist intervention, started by Howard continued by
theALP.

* Continued support for the never ever GST also implemented by Howard.

* The support of corporate subsidies (fuel/water /electricity rebates), i.e.
using our tax dollar (using our
nations borrowing capacity) to prop up multinational swindlers.

* The off shore processing (torture) of asylum seekers.

* Not taking "direct action" (not the NLP version), on climate change but
using some market trading mechanism to bring about the change on pollution.

* Blind support for Israel's continuing war crimes.

All very laudable that the Greens oppose those things, and until very
recently I'd have never lumped the Greens in with the other two.

But now - and I hate to use the phrase here but it fits - the Greens
have 'jumped the shark' politically, just like the Democrats did.

Fact is, the Greens are supporting this carbon tax, and for that
reason alone is enough for me to lose respect for them. This tax has
*nothing* to do with reducing emissions and will be twisted/abused
over time to drive prices up.

Here in Tasmania, most of our electricuty is hydro generated and yet
it seems that won't be taken into consideration carbon tax-wise.

We already pay way over the true cost of electricity here simply
because we have some bullshit called 'Basslink' operated by the
National Grid Australia Pty Ltd - a U.K company no less.
It means we've agreed to set prices in line with the mainland prices,
even though it costs nothing like those prices to produce that power.
This carbon tax is just more of the same kind of shit. Just like Opec.

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:39:27 +0930, "no one" <krawczuk@adam.com.au>
wrote:

ummmm people against the carbon tax is 69% !! theres no way it gonna go
thru !!

LOL... oh yeah, that's right... we have a democracy, don't we? LOL.

"atec77" <atec77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ivdfsq$t0j$1@dont-email.me...
On 11/07/2011 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
no one wrote:
if the carbon tax does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce
pollutants ?

**The carbon tax will go through. It SHOULD reduce the amount of CO2
emitted
by Australian industry, because industry will attempt to lower their
costs
of doing business, by choosing lower emission technologies, processes and
power sources. Do you have your head permantly up your arse?


ummmmm IT WONT !!!

**Prove it.

Prove that it will ?
oH the right you can't just as the govco has failed

Prove that Abbott's, discredited, taxpayer funded system will be
better. That's your choice, after all.
No need to , help will gain office on the promise of removal


what ever businesses are making now , they are gonna continue to make
, and there fore make the same amount of pollutants.its just a scam
for the government to get more money .

**Clearly, you have no idea.
Oh wake up twevy


isnt it funny ?// you can make as much pollution as you want as long as
you pay for it..

**If the government has chosen the numbers correctly, then business will
choose lower emissions methods and CO2 pollution will fall.
Historically they don't and it wont

 

[kreed]

On Jul 11, 11:09 am, "no one" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:

ummmm people against the carbon tax is 69% !!  theres no way it gonna go
thru !!

"atec77" <ate...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ivdfsq$t0j$1@dont-email.me...

On 11/07/2011 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
no one wrote:
if the carbon tax  does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce
pollutants ?

**The carbon tax will go through. It SHOULD reduce the amount of CO2
emitted
by Australian industry, because industry will attempt to lower their
costs
of doing business, by choosing lower emission technologies, processes and
power sources. Do you have your head permantly up your arse?

ummmmm   IT WONT !!!

**Prove it.

 Prove that it will ?
 oH the right you can't just as the govco has failed

 Prove that Abbott's, discredited, taxpayer funded system will be
better. That's your choice, after all.
 No need to , help will gain office on the promise of removal

what ever businesses are making now , they are gonna continue to make
, and there fore make the same amount of pollutants.its just a scam
for the government to get   more money .

**Clearly, you have no idea.
 Oh wake up twevy

isnt it funny ?//  you can make as much pollution as you want as long as
you pay for it..

**If the government has chosen the numbers correctly, then business will
choose lower emissions methods and CO2 pollution will fall.
 Historically they don't and it wont

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

The problem is people have no right to vote on this - we do not have
citizen initiated referendums,
or other mechanisms to stop or remove unpopular legislation
Only the politicians vote they do NOT have to listen to you.

Many would have voted for gillard for saying
"There will be no tax on carbon under any government I lead"

If she had promised a carbon tax instead, Its very unlikely she would
have been elected.

 

[kreed]

On Jul 10, 9:03 pm, "no one" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:

if the carbon tax  does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce pollutants ?

ummmmm   IT WONT !!!

what ever businesses are making now , they are gonna continue to make , and
there fore make the same amount of pollutants.its just a scam for the
government to get   more money .

isnt it funny ?//  you can make as much pollution as you want as  long as
you pay for it..

It isn't meant to stop pollution, and has nothing to do with the
environment (most environmental legislation is not about the
environment)
It is about grabbing money, and removing competition
for favoured big businesses and powerful multi-national corporations.

You will find that certain big businesses that are in bed with the
Government
will be granted exemptions, and their competition won't. This will
wipe out the
competition and deliver all the business to the Government favoured
multi-national.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11/07/2011 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
no one wrote:
if the carbon tax does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce
pollutants ?

**The carbon tax will go through. It SHOULD reduce the amount of CO2
emitted by Australian industry, because industry will attempt to
lower their costs of doing business, by choosing lower emission
technologies, processes and power sources. Do you have your head
permantly up your arse?

In practice, though, industry's scope for doing that is limited. In
the power sector, we will perhaps see some movement from brown coal
to black coal.

**And that is a bad thing, how? Brown coal is the very worst way to generate
electricity. Well, with the exception of burning penguins.

Beyond that, the question is whether the tax is high enough to cause a
shift from coal to natural gas (in combined cycle gas turbines) for
baseload generation. I'm inclined to doubt it, particularly as any
move away from coal towards natural gas will cause the price of the
latter to rise.

**I accept your inclination. Do you have some data to back that inclination?

There may be a modest move towards CCGT for peak loads, as the tax
makes it somewhat beneficial to build CCGT plant despite its sitting
idle for more of each day than current economics dictate.

The tax won't directly increase the use of solar power or wind because
both of those remain hopelessly uneconomic. Some of the Greenie fund
may end up being converted into those useless systems.

**Really? How much will PV cells be in (say) two years?

Hot rocks become more attractive, as evidenced by Geodynamics 31% rise
today (and I kind of anticipated that, and could have made a tidy
profit if I hadn't assumed the tax had already been discounted ).

**Geo-thermal has enormous promise to unseat coal for base load power.
Hopefully, the carbon tax will make that promise into reality.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/07/2011 2:06 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
no one wrote:
if the carbon tax does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce
pollutants ?

**The carbon tax will go through. It SHOULD reduce the amount of CO2
emitted by Australian industry, because industry will attempt to
lower their costs of doing business, by choosing lower emission
technologies, processes and power sources. Do you have your head
permantly up your arse?

In practice, though, industry's scope for doing that is limited. In
the power sector, we will perhaps see some movement from brown coal
to black coal.

**And that is a bad thing, how? Brown coal is the very worst way to generate
electricity. Well, with the exception of burning penguins.


Beyond that, the question is whether the tax is high enough to cause a
shift from coal to natural gas (in combined cycle gas turbines) for
baseload generation. I'm inclined to doubt it, particularly as any
move away from coal towards natural gas will cause the price of the
latter to rise.

**I accept your inclination. Do you have some data to back that inclination?

Not offhand. Just memories of some numbers from a while back, and
bearing in mind that gas generators produce CO2 output as well, so coal
fired generators only suffer part of the tax in terms of loss of
competetiveness.

There may be a modest move towards CCGT for peak loads, as the tax
makes it somewhat beneficial to build CCGT plant despite its sitting
idle for more of each day than current economics dictate.

The tax won't directly increase the use of solar power or wind because
both of those remain hopelessly uneconomic. Some of the Greenie fund
may end up being converted into those useless systems.

**Really? How much will PV cells be in (say) two years?

Not vastly cheaper, unless there's a technogy breakthrough. They've been
around long enough already. There's also the issue of their requiring
backup generation to cover times when they aren't generating.

Hot rocks become more attractive, as evidenced by Geodynamics 31% rise
today (and I kind of anticipated that, and could have made a tidy
profit if I hadn't assumed the tax had already been discounted ).

**Geo-thermal has enormous promise to unseat coal for base load power.
Hopefully, the carbon tax will make that promise into reality.

It would make sense to hold off on any solar and wind investments for a
few years to see whether Hot Rocks are really going to deliver, because
success will show all solar and wind plants to be white elephants.

A few $Billion out of the fund should be sent in the direction of fusion
research, on the grounds that even if we can manage without fusion on
Austrlia ('cos we have hot rocks), the world as a whole is going to need it.

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Jul 11, 1:03 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

no one wrote:
if the carbon tax  does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce pollutants ?

ummmmm   IT WONT !!!

what ever businesses are making now , they are gonna continue to make , and
there fore make the same amount of pollutants.its just a scam for the
government to get   more money .

isnt it funny ?//  you can make as much pollution as you want as  long as
you pay for it..

The govt is going to give some back to the people so that they can
afford the  big increases that companies will charge so as to get back
the tax instead of having to change their ways.

IE: those that are productive, will have money taken from them by
force of law, and
it will be given to the ferals that won't work and just live off the
taxpayer ? So the productive and middle class
will just pay their own carbon tax, and also pay for the drone's
carbon tax as well - via this "compensation" ?

In order to 'fix" a "problem" that isnt even real ???

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/07/2011 3:40 PM, kreed wrote:

On Jul 11, 3:09 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2011 2:06 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:



Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
no one wrote:
if the carbon tax does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce
pollutants ?

**The carbon tax will go through. It SHOULD reduce the amount of CO2
emitted by Australian industry, because industry will attempt to
lower their costs of doing business, by choosing lower emission
technologies, processes and power sources. Do you have your head
permantly up your arse?

In practice, though, industry's scope for doing that is limited. In
the power sector, we will perhaps see some movement from brown coal
to black coal.

**And that is a bad thing, how? Brown coal is the very worst way to generate
electricity. Well, with the exception of burning penguins.

Beyond that, the question is whether the tax is high enough to cause a
shift from coal to natural gas (in combined cycle gas turbines) for
baseload generation. I'm inclined to doubt it, particularly as any
move away from coal towards natural gas will cause the price of the
latter to rise.

**I accept your inclination. Do you have some data to back that inclination?

Not offhand. Just memories of some numbers from a while back, and
bearing in mind that gas generators produce CO2 output as well, so coal
fired generators only suffer part of the tax in terms of loss of
competetiveness.



There may be a modest move towards CCGT for peak loads, as the tax
makes it somewhat beneficial to build CCGT plant despite its sitting
idle for more of each day than current economics dictate.

The tax won't directly increase the use of solar power or wind because
both of those remain hopelessly uneconomic. Some of the Greenie fund
may end up being converted into those useless systems.

**Really? How much will PV cells be in (say) two years?

Not vastly cheaper, unless there's a technogy breakthrough. They've been
around long enough already. There's also the issue of their requiring
backup generation to cover times when they aren't generating.



Hot rocks become more attractive, as evidenced by Geodynamics 31% rise
today (and I kind of anticipated that, and could have made a tidy
profit if I hadn't assumed the tax had already been discounted ).

**Geo-thermal has enormous promise to unseat coal for base load power.
Hopefully, the carbon tax will make that promise into reality.

It would make sense to hold off on any solar and wind investments for a
few years to see whether Hot Rocks are really going to deliver, because
success will show all solar and wind plants to be white elephants.

A few $Billion out of the fund should be sent in the direction of fusion
research, on the grounds that even if we can manage without fusion on
Austrlia ('cos we have hot rocks), the world as a whole is going to need it.

Sylvia.

Most of what isnt grubbed by pollies and their friends, or by compo to
the bludgers, I doubt much will
be leftover

I was thinking specifically of the $10 billion managed by the "Clean
Energy Finance Corporation".

In theory it's meant to be for new technology, but I'm far from
confident that a different colour frame for PV panels, or designer
blades for one's wind farm, wouldn't count.

Of course, it may be a clever sop the Greens, designed so that in
practice little if any of the money will actually be paid out.

Sylvia.

 

[Vox]

Jeßus wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:45:48 +1000, "Vox" <VoxPoop@spammail.com
wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:07:54 +1000, atec77 <atec77@hotmail.com
wrote:

On 10/07/2011 10:49 PM, Dennis wrote:
On 10/07/2011 7:03 PM, no one wrote:
Marky, since the cost of electricity has increased substantially
do you turn your lights off more or only run your a/c when its
really necessary?
This last 1/4 our bill read practically the same amount yet rose
17% guess what I said and then realised the carbon tax wont help
us part from charging more than it should for sfa performance ,
10% more power bill does not happy me make
Labor will fail again and again and again whilst in office , time
for an election

Yeah... as though the Libs will remove the tax when in a position to
do so. LOL. Wake up!! Abbott is simply being opportunistic and
getting a free and easy ride opposing this at the moment.

I hate Labor as much as I hate the Libs and Greens.

Hey, don't lump The Greens with LIB/LAB .

The ALP & NLP are in lock step appeasing the wants of the corporate
world.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
THEY ARE NOT THERE TO SERVE THE VOTING PUBLIC.

There is a BIG difference between The Greens and the rest.

The Greens oppose,

* The continuation in an open ended war in Afghanistan and anywhere
else America decides to invade.

* The buy up (investment) of Australia of foreign multinationals
(selling the farms to
foreigners)

* The northern territory racist intervention, started by Howard
continued by theALP.

* Continued support for the never ever GST also implemented by
Howard.

* The support of corporate subsidies (fuel/water /electricity
rebates), i.e. using our tax dollar (using our
nations borrowing capacity) to prop up multinational swindlers.

* The off shore processing (torture) of asylum seekers.

* Not taking "direct action" (not the NLP version), on climate
change but using some market trading mechanism to bring about the
change on pollution.

* Blind support for Israel's continuing war crimes.

All very laudable that the Greens oppose those things, and until very
recently I'd have never lumped the Greens in with the other two.

But now - and I hate to use the phrase here but it fits - the Greens
have 'jumped the shark' politically, just like the Democrats did.

I don't agree , it's the political process , they have to negotiate and make
some compromises on their core belief .
That is, compromise as long as they don't altogether abandon everything just
to please the other side.

They would prefer a higher price, but it's at least a start considering the
bitch fight and several leaders deposed to get here.

With all the set backs this scheme is a far better one than the one proposed
by K Rudd, that handed billions in compensation to the polluters.

The democrats on the other hand betrayed their core beliefs & SOLD OUT, some
in the party saw it a "natural progress" of the party to make big deals with
the government to become more main stream & relevant.

Fact is, the Greens are supporting this carbon tax, and for that
reason alone is enough for me to lose respect for them. This tax has
*nothing* to do with reducing emissions and will be twisted/abused
over time to drive prices up.
It's a piss week amount and a low target of 5%, but it's a start, and

eventually the polluters will clean up their act to save on paying this tax.

But there are also other incentives for the renewable industry, and I've
heard a lot of these companies shares have jumped in value on the Stock
market overnight .

Here in Tasmania, most of our electricuty is hydro generated and yet
it seems that won't be taken into consideration carbon tax-wise.

I can't see how the carbon tax should have any influence on the cost of
Hydro electricity.

We already pay way over the true cost of electricity here simply
because we have some bullshit called 'Basslink' operated by the
National Grid Australia Pty Ltd - a U.K company no less.
It means we've agreed to set prices in line with the mainland prices,
even though it costs nothing like those prices to produce that power.
This carbon tax is just more of the same kind of shit. Just like Opec.

I think this has more to do with privatisation of electricity than the
carbon tax.
We have had NSW ALP destroyed over internal fighting to fully privatise
electricity grid here.
It's the way of incompetent governments when they get short on cash they
flog off another public asset to balance the books.

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:19:11 +1000, "Vox" <VoxPoop@spammail.com>
wrote:

Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:45:48 +1000, "Vox" <VoxPoop@spammail.com
wrote:
But now - and I hate to use the phrase here but it fits - the Greens
have 'jumped the shark' politically, just like the Democrats did.

I don't agree , it's the political process , they have to negotiate and make
some compromises on their core belief .
That is, compromise as long as they don't altogether abandon everything just
to please the other side.

On this one particular issue, it's just too much of a compromise for
me I'm afraid. This carbon tax is the most serious threat to our
country that I can ever recall. There is NO way it will stay in it's
current incarnation. Its just the tip of the iceberg.

They've also compromised on a number of other issues, now that they've
gone 'mainstream'.

Actually, I just realised another reason why I'm no longer a Greens
supporter - and that is here in Tas we have a Labor/Greens coalition
govt. Lately there has been a number of issues that simply have left
us (as in people of all political persuasions) shaking our heads.

Only last week they finally backed down from closing 20 regional
schools here. The reason for the planned closure was to save $28
million... over 4 years. I won't go into detail, but it was a
stunningly stupid idea and would have decimated many vibrant
communities, people would have choice but to move. Businesses were in
danger of closing, etc. Hundreds of people dropped everything, their
jobs, businesses, just to fight it. As mentioned, they finally backed
down. The education minister is Nick McKim - a Green. Our genius of a
premier referred to the whole nightmare as "a leaning experience".
These people in power are just simply worse than useless.

I have no faith in any of the major parties. Budget deficit? No
problem, lets sell off some infrastructure! Yes, just brilliant...

They would prefer a higher price, but it's at least a start considering the
bitch fight and several leaders deposed to get here.

With all the set backs this scheme is a far better one than the one proposed
by K Rudd, that handed billions in compensation to the polluters.

The democrats on the other hand betrayed their core beliefs & SOLD OUT, some
in the party saw it a "natural progress" of the party to make big deals with
the government to become more main stream & relevant.

Totally agree, except the Greens are well on their way down the exact
same path, though I will concede they are likely to survive it.

Fact is, the Greens are supporting this carbon tax, and for that
reason alone is enough for me to lose respect for them. This tax has
*nothing* to do with reducing emissions and will be twisted/abused
over time to drive prices up.
It's a piss week amount and a low target of 5%, but it's a start, and
eventually the polluters will clean up their act to save on paying this tax.

Look, I'm all for reducing pollution (remember that word?), but this
carbon tax concept aint going to do it. I'll wager the very people
it's meant to bring into line will end up actually benefiting from it.
Wait until it becomes linked into a world-wide system. Control of
essential services like electricity and water should never be taken
away from us, but that's what's happened.

Our water is next, in fact the world's water supply is being bought up
by corporations. It's the new oil.

'carbon' appears to be such a big boogeyman, yet I see nothing
mentioned about plastic, or overpopulation.

But there are also other incentives for the renewable industry, and I've
heard a lot of these companies shares have jumped in value on the Stock
market overnight .


Here in Tasmania, most of our electricuty is hydro generated and yet
it seems that won't be taken into consideration carbon tax-wise.

I can't see how the carbon tax should have any influence on the cost of
Hydro electricity.

It shouldn't. but it looks like we'll be paying the tax regardless.
Funny that.

We already pay way over the true cost of electricity here simply
because we have some bullshit called 'Basslink' operated by the
National Grid Australia Pty Ltd - a U.K company no less.
It means we've agreed to set prices in line with the mainland prices,
even though it costs nothing like those prices to produce that power.
This carbon tax is just more of the same kind of shit. Just like Opec.

I think this has more to do with privatisation of electricity than the
carbon tax.

Yep, I was just citing another example where we (Tasmanians) were told
this was to be of great benefit to us, when in fact it is precisely
the opposite. I see the carbon tax being in the same category.

We have had NSW ALP destroyed over internal fighting to fully privatise
electricity grid here.
It's the way of incompetent governments when they get short on cash they
flog off another public asset to balance the books.

Yup. Can you even imagine our federal and state governments behaving
so unethically say, 30 years ago? Ditto most anywhere else in the
western world for that matter.

The stuff they do these days, as a matter of course, would have been
completely out of the question back then. Capitalism is sick... and
needs a major overhaul. I think things need to get a whole lot worse
before everybody finally wakes up and gets on the same page.

 

[kreed]

On Jul 11, 3:09 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 11/07/2011 2:06 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:



Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
no one wrote:
if the carbon tax  does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce
pollutants ?

**The carbon tax will go through. It SHOULD reduce the amount of CO2
emitted by Australian industry, because industry will attempt to
lower their costs of doing business, by choosing lower emission
technologies, processes and power sources. Do you have your head
permantly up your arse?

In practice, though, industry's scope for doing that is limited. In
the power sector, we will perhaps see some movement from brown coal
to black coal.

**And that is a bad thing, how? Brown coal is the very worst way to generate
electricity. Well, with the exception of burning penguins.

Beyond that, the question is whether the tax is high enough to cause a
shift from coal to natural gas (in combined cycle gas turbines) for
baseload generation. I'm inclined to doubt it, particularly as any
move away from coal towards natural gas will cause the price of the
latter to rise.

**I accept your inclination. Do you have some data to back that inclination?

Not offhand. Just memories of some numbers from a while back, and
bearing in mind that gas generators produce CO2 output as well, so coal
fired generators only suffer part of the tax in terms of loss of
competetiveness.



There may be a modest move towards CCGT for peak loads, as the tax
makes it somewhat beneficial to build CCGT plant despite its sitting
idle for more of each day than current economics dictate.

The tax won't directly increase the use of solar power or wind because
both of those remain hopelessly uneconomic. Some of the Greenie fund
may end up being converted into those useless systems.

**Really? How much will PV cells be in (say) two years?

Not vastly cheaper, unless there's a technogy breakthrough. They've been
around long enough already. There's also the issue of their requiring
backup generation to cover times when they aren't generating.



Hot rocks become more attractive, as evidenced by Geodynamics 31% rise
today (and I kind of anticipated that, and could have made a tidy
profit if I hadn't assumed the tax had already been discounted ).

**Geo-thermal has enormous promise to unseat coal for base load power.
Hopefully, the carbon tax will make that promise into reality.

It would make sense to hold off on any solar and wind investments for a
few years to see whether Hot Rocks are really going to deliver, because
success will show all solar and wind plants to be white elephants.

A few $Billion out of the fund should be sent in the direction of fusion
research, on the grounds that even if we can manage without fusion on
Austrlia ('cos we have hot rocks), the world as a whole is going to need it.

Sylvia.

Most of what isnt grubbed by pollies and their friends, or by compo to
the bludgers, I doubt much will
be leftover

 

[Eunometic]

But there are also other incentives for the renewable industry, and I've
heard a lot of these companies shares have jumped in value on the Stock
market overnight .

A carbon tax will not work and will be counterproductive.

The technology for renewable energy doesn't exist. The most efficient
form of renewable energy could produce power at about 20c to 25c/
KW.Hr.

This compares to 5c for thermal brown coal. Nuclear maybe 10c when
disposal of waste and decomissioning is considered.

The Germans spent 70 billion euro to generate 0.2% of their energy
needs (2% of their electricity needs, about 6% during the day)

Rouughtly to gurantee 1kW of power continiuous one would need
1 For wind $10,000 investment in wind turbines, gas turbine backup and
some energy storage.
2 For solar about $35,000
3 For a combined cycle gas turbine plant, $600.00


Assuming 5% payback over 20 years, 8% interest per year inclusive of
profit, 2.5% maintenance and 2.5% running costs we end up haveing to
add 18% to get the annual cost.

We just need to throw a lot of money at R+D.

The best result will be to push conventional technology: for instance
hydrograsification of coal (80% efficient) to make natural gas and the
new 61% efficient combined cycle gas turbines from GE and Siemens
which can ramp to full power in 30 minutes. Install gas to more
houses.

That should halve the CO2 output and the capital cost probably 1/10th
of wind power.

ie a 35% power station emits twice as much CO2 per unit of power than
as a 48% power stations.

And what about encouraging more fuel efficient cars?

Here in Tasmania, most of our electricuty is hydro generated and yet
it seems that won't be taken into consideration carbon tax-wise.

I can't see how the carbon tax should have any influence on the cost of
Hydro electricity.

They'd find a way of costing loss of forrest and outgasing of rotting
vegetation.

I think this has more to do with privatisation of electricity than the
carbon tax.
We have had NSW ALP destroyed over internal fighting to fully privatise
electricity grid here.

And now they want to be compensated.

 

[yaputya]

"Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:defcf98c-d43d-4277-9b8e-cd3489248bc8@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

But there are also other incentives for the renewable industry, and I've
heard a lot of these companies shares have jumped in value on the Stock
market overnight .


A carbon tax will not work and will be counterproductive.

The technology for renewable energy doesn't exist. The most efficient
form of renewable energy could produce power at about 20c to 25c/
KW.Hr.

This compares to 5c for thermal brown coal. Nuclear maybe 10c when
disposal of waste and decomissioning is considered.

The Germans spent 70 billion euro to generate 0.2% of their energy
needs (2% of their electricity needs, about 6% during the day)

At least they tried to do the right thing, and guess which economy in Europe
is the strongest ?????

Rouughtly to gurantee 1kW of power continiuous one would need
1 For wind $10,000 investment in wind turbines, gas turbine backup and
some energy storage.
2 For solar about $35,000
3 For a combined cycle gas turbine plant, $600.00


Assuming 5% payback over 20 years, 8% interest per year inclusive of
profit, 2.5% maintenance and 2.5% running costs we end up haveing to
add 18% to get the annual cost.

We just need to throw a lot of money at R+D.

The best result will be to push conventional technology: for instance
hydrograsification of coal (80% efficient) to make natural gas and the
new 61% efficient combined cycle gas turbines from GE and Siemens
which can ramp to full power in 30 minutes. Install gas to more
houses.

That should halve the CO2 output and the capital cost probably 1/10th
of wind power.

All are short-sighted excuses- not solutions. The fossil fuels are a
temporary
resource that we are wasting because of the short-sighted attitudes no doubt
due to bribery and corruption.

ie a 35% power station emits twice as much CO2 per unit of power than
as a 48% power stations.

And what about encouraging more fuel efficient cars?

You have to make 'em cheap to buy and even cheaper to run, and then
overcome the bastards who are making millions out of flogging oil.....

 

[Mickle]

On 11/07/2011 11:27 AM, atec77 wrote:

We don't need another tax but we do need some fiscal management that
doest piss away billions on replacing a perfectly viable communications
system

I agree labour are idiots and I won't vote for them for the same reasons
as you. Why are we spending billions to effectively watch TV via the
internet? However the carbon tax is the first thing labour have done
that I have liked. It shows some real balls doing something the voters
obviously don't like but that we really need. We do need something to
slow down carbon use and help encourage green energy. It's something
I've wanted most of my life. The problem with taking fuel out of the
ground is that you are effectively getting it for free, you don't have
to purchase the coal or oil off anyone. If you can get it out of the
ground for 1c per litre then it can be sold for 10c a litre. There's no
incentive to do it any other way.

 

[who where]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:32:15 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

no one wrote:
if the carbon tax does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce
pollutants ?

**The carbon tax will go through. It SHOULD reduce the amount of CO2 emitted
by Australian industry, because industry will attempt to lower their costs
of doing business, by choosing lower emission technologies, processes and
power sources. Do you have your head permantly up your arse?

It SHOULD, and all the ivory-tower-completely-out-of-touch-with-the
realities-of-running-a-business dreamers are banking on that.

Over on the other side of town where real businesses operate the
response is clear - adapt or die. So added input costs will appear as
added output costs - prices of outputs will rise to keep the balance
sheet balanced. Business Accounting 101. Any moves to lower-emission
technologies will be about as significant as a snail's fart in a
cyclone.

Last night on (ABC) Lateline a spokesman for the energy industry gave
some real numbers. In its first year this will add $4.6B to the cost
of generating electricity in Oz. It was clear that *will* be passed
on, and by the time you add on the retail margins thats about $200
p.a. per man/woman/child.

That's just ONE affected commodity. Transport costs come under
multiple pressures - the fuel, most consumables, drivers' pay (their
COL is being hit too). Supermarkets will get hit with rises in
commodities, transport, electricity, water, ....

Those same dreamers reckon a $200 shopping trolley's contents will
only go up 80c . I want some of what they're smoking!

 

[who where]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:07:06 -0700 (PDT), kreed
<kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 11, 1:03 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
no one wrote:
if the carbon tax  does go thru , how is this gonna help reduce pollutants ?

ummmmm   IT WONT !!!

what ever businesses are making now , they are gonna continue to make , and
there fore make the same amount of pollutants.its just a scam for the
government to get   more money .

isnt it funny ?//  you can make as much pollution as you want as  long as
you pay for it..



The govt is going to give some back to the people so that they can
afford the  big increases that companies will charge so as to get back
the tax instead of having to change their ways.


IE: those that are productive, will have money taken from them by
force of law, and
it will be given to the ferals that won't work and just live off the
taxpayer ? So the productive and middle class
will just pay their own carbon tax, and also pay for the drone's
carbon tax as well - via this "compensation" ?

In order to 'fix" a "problem" that isnt even real ???

There are two completey separate issues - "global warming" etc and the
carbon tax. Regardless of one's stance on the former, the carbon tax
needs to be considered solely and entirely on what beneficial impact
it will have on the environment.

which is fsck-all.

 

[no one]

you wont be liking it when you start paying more for energy...
they just think of other ways to screw money out of ya,,.,,
carbon tax got nothing to do with makin cleaner air..
you still dont get it , do you ,, you can MAKE AS MUCH POLLUTION AS YOU
WANT AS LONG AS YOU PAY FOR IT.


instead of paying carbon tax , would nt it be better for companies to be
told to reduce the amount of pollution they make by a certain time or
they`lll be fined ?


"Mickle" <mickle@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4e1b9552$0$22471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

On 11/07/2011 11:27 AM, atec77 wrote:
We don't need another tax but we do need some fiscal management that
doest piss away billions on replacing a perfectly viable communications
system

I agree labour are idiots and I won't vote for them for the same reasons
as you. Why are we spending billions to effectively watch TV via the
internet? However the carbon tax is the first thing labour have done that
I have liked. It shows some real balls doing something the voters
obviously don't like but that we really need. We do need something to slow
down carbon use and help encourage green energy. It's something I've
wanted most of my life. The problem with taking fuel out of the ground is
that you are effectively getting it for free, you don't have to purchase
the coal or oil off anyone. If you can get it out of the ground for 1c per
litre then it can be sold for 10c a litre. There's no incentive to do it
any other way.

 

[kreed]

On Jul 12, 5:53 am, "yaputya" <yaputya.leftle...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:defcf98c-d43d-4277-9b8e-cd3489248bc8@e20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...





But there are also other incentives for the renewable industry, and I've
heard a lot of these companies shares have jumped in value on the Stock
market overnight .

A carbon tax will not work and will be counterproductive.

The technology for renewable energy doesn't exist.  The most efficient
form of renewable energy could produce power at about 20c to 25c/
KW.Hr.

This compares to 5c for thermal brown coal.  Nuclear maybe 10c when
disposal of waste and decomissioning is considered.

The Germans spent 70 billion euro to generate 0.2% of their energy
needs (2% of their electricity needs, about 6% during the day)

At least they tried to do the right thing, and guess which economy in Europe
is the strongest ?????

More like "which ship is sinking the slowest" ?. They will just slide
into oblivion
if they do things like this rather than providing affordable energy.
Nuclear is a
far better choice - if you still believe in this C02 stuff.

Rouughtly to gurantee 1kW of power continiuous one would need
1 For wind $10,000 investment in wind turbines, gas turbine backup and
some energy storage.
2 For solar about $35,000
3 For a combined cycle gas turbine plant, $600.00

Assuming 5% payback over 20 years, 8% interest per year inclusive of
profit, 2.5% maintenance and 2.5% running costs we end up haveing to
add 18% to get the annual cost.

We just need to throw a lot of money at R+D.

The best result will be to push conventional technology: for instance
hydrograsification of coal (80% efficient) to make natural gas and the
new 61% efficient combined cycle gas turbines from GE and Siemens
which can ramp to full power in 30 minutes.  Install gas to more
houses.

That sounds more realistic.

That should halve the CO2 output and the capital cost probably 1/10th
of wind power.

All are short-sighted excuses- not solutions. The fossil fuels are a
temporary
resource that we are wasting because of the short-sighted attitudes no doubt
due to bribery and corruption.

]

Bribery and corruption - yes
IE:

Fake oil shortage scares manufactured by the oil companies in order to
drive up prices through artificial scarcity.

If there were viable alternatives to oil, then the US would not need
to be invading every middle east country in these
illegal wars, on behalf of the oil companies, (paid for through your
tax dollars though)
who simply want monopoly control of all the oil, and the oil market to
charge whatever they want.

ie a 35% power station emits twice as much CO2 per unit of power than
as a 48% power stations.

And what about encouraging more fuel efficient cars?

You have to make 'em cheap to buy and even cheaper to run, and then
overcome the bastards who are making millions out of flogging oil.....

If you take a look at how it works, big oil (especially BP as it holds
patents and has interests in many solar/wind technologies and
products) are
pushing hard for the carbon tax so people will be pressured to buy
these and generate revenue.
This means they stand to profit out of it, some say a massive profit,
even compared to their oil profits

As oil is an essential resource that they control,
they can up prices even more, and blame it on the carbon tax, and the
fake "environmental problems" associated with it
BP also funds green groups like WWF, who also help with price fixing
by pushing for certain oil fields not to be used, (usually in western
countries)
this also helps limit oil supply, keep smaller players out of the
market and further push the "artificial scarcity"/high prices scam.


These people and those behind them have the money and power to buy any
government, media, (to control public perception
and push propaganda advantageous to their interests) research,
education
and everything you rely on.

Nothing is allowed to be done that does not profit these people and
increase their power.

 

[kreed]

On Jul 12, 10:29 am, Mickle <mic...@nospam.com> wrote:

On 11/07/2011 11:27 AM, atec77 wrote:

We don't need another tax but we do need some fiscal management that
doest piss away billions on replacing a perfectly viable communications
system

I agree labour are idiots and I won't vote for them for the same reasons
as you. Why are we spending billions to effectively watch TV via the
internet? However the carbon tax is the first thing labour have done
that I have liked. It shows some real balls doing something the voters
obviously don't like but that we really need. We do need something to
slow down carbon use and help encourage green energy. It's something
I've wanted most of my life. The problem with taking fuel out of the
ground is that you are effectively getting it for free, you don't have
to purchase the coal or oil off anyone. If you can get it out of the
ground for 1c per litre then it can be sold for 10c a litre. There's no
incentive to do it any other way.


We don't need the ridiculous scam tax or NBN..

Sucking up to global banks and corporations who want this tax, and
funded this scam
and doing their dirty deeds as well as pushing this debunked C02
garbage does not take balls.

It's cowardly, and it is selling out Australians for the sake of
personal gain.
Lying to 20 million Aussies that you arent' bringing it in in order to
get votes is despicable.
( I was going to say selling out your country, but Gillard isn't an
Australian in any way whatsoever)

Having balls would be exposing it, coming clean on it and stopping
it. That is what is brave, heroic
and self sacrificing for your country and future generations. That
takes real balls.
People who sell out cheap are the lowest of the low.



The only way to resolve this is to make the carbon pricing system
voluntary, or at least an "opt out". This way it keeps both sides
happy.

For example, anyone who wants it, gets a card they can swipe when they
buy anything, and it can add the cost of the "carbon"
to the product. It can then go directly into funding "alternatvies",
but not into donations for political parties, advertising, lobbying
or anything that would force these views onto others.

This is the only way that is fair and more importantly respects the
rights and freedoms of all Australians on both sides