Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

CO2 Taxation Australia

Reply
Created by FlySurfer > 9 months ago, 8 Jul 2011
Trant
NSW, 601 posts
12 Jul 2011 10:28AM
Thumbs Up

pweedas said...
Trant, what you have failed to pull out of your butt is an alternative method of producing power at anywhere near the cost it can be pulled out of a coal fired power station. Unfortunately it is about half the cost of the next cleanest alternative which is a gas powered power station. And these still produce bags of "dangerous carbon polution" by-products.


Gee, looks like wind, biomass, geothermal and hydro are all looking quite good too.
I can't imagine why there are so many wind farms popping up in Europe.



source : US Energy Information Administration - www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Gizmo
SA, 2865 posts
12 Jul 2011 10:12AM
Thumbs Up

How about we just harness the hot air and garbage generated by politicians as an energy source ... there seems to be an endless supply (and it's renewable)

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
12 Jul 2011 10:49AM
Thumbs Up

Gizmo said...

How about we just harness the hot air and garbage generated by politicians as an energy source ... there seems to be an endless supply (and it's renewable)


We could put them in special sound proof holding pens too. Just point a camera at them, (we don't have to tell them it doesn't work), set up a turbine and stand welllll back.

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
12 Jul 2011 9:14AM
Thumbs Up

Co2 is the excuse for tax manipulation by the ALP. Look at it, you take money from the super (polluters?) rich, spread a bit on the low income population, a fair smaller amount on the middle class and almost nothing on the rich then you lower the free tax threshold to keep everyone happy, pocket a massive profit and blame the rising CO2 levels. Let get real that is the tax shake up we had to have

Pugwash
WA, 7671 posts
12 Jul 2011 9:19AM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

The tide has turned PW. Gillard now has a positive statesman like message to sell that could make Abbotts position very wedged. Those opinion polls are a bit rich though, one lot I saw were saying 50% of greens voters were unhappy with Gillard. But we all know on election day they will all go Labor or Green. I reckon the backroom boys at Liberal HQ will be starting to thjink of plan B


I sincerely hope you are right loggy regarding the message. I think it is time to moooooovee foarwarid, from appalling and disgusting to just plain bad

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
12 Jul 2011 9:29AM
Thumbs Up

Pugwash said...

log man said...

The tide has turned PW. Gillard now has a positive statesman like message to sell that could make Abbotts position very wedged. Those opinion polls are a bit rich though, one lot I saw were saying 50% of greens voters were unhappy with Gillard. But we all know on election day they will all go Labor or Green. I reckon the backroom boys at Liberal HQ will be starting to thjink of plan B


I sincerely hope you are right loggy regarding the message. I think it is time to moooooovee foarwarid, from appalling and disgusting to just plain bad

Tony is Julia's best ally... As long as he will be the libs leader they have not one chance of getting in power!

FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
12 Jul 2011 11:38AM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...

Doesn't appear to have done the Swedes much harm. They've had a tax on Carbon for 20 years and it's set at $150 per tonne
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions

The tax is credited with spurring a significant move from fossil fuels to biomass. As Swedish Society for Nature Conservation climate change expert Emma Lindberg said, "It was the one major reason that steered society towards climate-friendly solutions. It made polluting more expensive and focused people on finding energy-efficient solutions."[108]
"It increased the use of bioenergy," said University of Lund Professor Thomas Johansson, former director of energy and climate at the UN Development Programme. "It had a major impact in particular on heating. Every city in Sweden uses district heating. Before, coal or oil were used for district heating. Now biomass is used, usually waste from forests and forest industries."
Economic growth appears to be unaffected.[original research?] Between 1990 and 2006, Sweden's economy grew by 44 percent


And, if anyone's interested, China is starting to implement a carbon Emissions Trading Scheme now
news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ets-the-lowest-cost-solution-china-20110330-1cf59.html



Do you know what they did with the tax money? They built nuclear and hydroelectric power stations!
I'm in favor of that too.

Sweden doesn't have abundant coal, we do.
Sweden has plenty of running water, we don't.
Sweden relies ~40% on nuclear power, we have a research reactor .

FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
12 Jul 2011 11:42AM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...
e.g. If I run 'Trantpower' and it costs me $10 to generate 1MW using coal, but $9 to generate 1MW using solar, then I'm going to see greater profit potential using solar and will spend less on new coal power stations and more on new solar farms.*
Without a carbon tax, it's still cheaper to generate power using coal and therefore my incentive is to use coal and invest in coal power.

The tax is 'supposed' to make clean energy more attractive to industry. (or clean production methods etc.)

* figures pulled out of my a$se ;)



Wow dude... I see greater profit in being a plastic surgeon, now I'm gona be a plastic surgeon.

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
12 Jul 2011 11:49AM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...
Do you know what they did with the tax money? They built nuclear and hydroelectric power stations!
I'm in favor of that too.

Sweden doesn't have abundant coal, we do.
Sweden has plenty of running water, we don't.
Sweden relies ~40% on nuclear power, we have a research reactor .


We also have abundant uranium, wind and sun.

Would you be in favour of using those?

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
12 Jul 2011 11:49AM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...

Trant said...
e.g. If I run 'Trantpower' and it costs me $10 to generate 1MW using coal, but $9 to generate 1MW using solar, then I'm going to see greater profit potential using solar and will spend less on new coal power stations and more on new solar farms.*
Without a carbon tax, it's still cheaper to generate power using coal and therefore my incentive is to use coal and invest in coal power.

The tax is 'supposed' to make clean energy more attractive to industry. (or clean production methods etc.)

* figures pulled out of my a$se ;)



Wow dude... I see greater profit in being a plastic surgeon, now I'm gona be a plastic surgeon.




Would you give me a discount? Being a fellow breezer and all..

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
12 Jul 2011 11:54AM
Thumbs Up

felixdcat said...

Co2 is the excuse for tax manipulation by the ALP. Look at it, you take money from the super (polluters?) rich, spread a bit on the low income population, a fair smaller amount on the middle class and almost nothing on the rich then you lower the free tax threshold to keep everyone happy, pocket a massive profit and blame the rising CO2 levels. Let get real that is the tax shake up we had to have


Pocket? How do the politicians pocket anything? They get paid the same regardless.

OH... pocket as in reduce deficits... make surpluses.

HEY! That's what some of you keep complaining that Labor doesn't do isn't it?

Or do you think it's only Liberals that should do that, while using their god given right to rule?

FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
12 Jul 2011 12:04PM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...
We also have abundant uranium, wind and sun.

Would you be in favour of using those?


Yes, and even more in favour of geothermal.

Our tax money isn't going to any of these .

FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
12 Jul 2011 12:06PM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...

FlySurfer said...

Trant said...
e.g. If I run 'Trantpower' and it costs me $10 to generate 1MW using coal, but $9 to generate 1MW using solar, then I'm going to see greater profit potential using solar and will spend less on new coal power stations and more on new solar farms.*
Without a carbon tax, it's still cheaper to generate power using coal and therefore my incentive is to use coal and invest in coal power.

The tax is 'supposed' to make clean energy more attractive to industry. (or clean production methods etc.)

* figures pulled out of my a$se ;)



Wow dude... I see greater profit in being a plastic surgeon, now I'm gona be a plastic surgeon.




Would you give me a discount? Being a fellow breezer and all..



Sure buddy, you can be my first patient. Hell come round now I have some spare time.

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
12 Jul 2011 12:08PM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...

Trant said...
We also have abundant uranium, wind and sun.

Would you be in favour of using those?


Yes, and even more in favour of geothermal.

Our tax money isn't going to any of these .


That's why it's called a market based mechanism. You use the tax to make wind, geo etc. cheaper in comparison and therefore more attractive.

Macroscien
QLD, 6806 posts
12 Jul 2011 2:39PM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...

Trant said...
We also have abundant uranium, wind and sun.

Would you be in favour of using those?


Yes, and even more in favour of geothermal.

Our tax money isn't going to any of these .


Do you all realize that by exploiting geothermal energy we actually contribute to lowering our mother Earth core temperature!
Atmosphere warming seems to be nothing in comparison.
Imagine gigantic task inherited by future generations in necessity to reheat Earth core

FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
12 Jul 2011 3:02PM
Thumbs Up

Macroscien said...

FlySurfer said...

Trant said...
We also have abundant uranium, wind and sun.

Would you be in favour of using those?


Yes, and even more in favour of geothermal.

Our tax money isn't going to any of these .


Do you all realize that by exploiting geothermal energy we actually contribute to lowering our mother Earth core temperature!
Atmosphere warming seems to be nothing in comparison.
Imagine gigantic task inherited by future generations in necessity to reheat Earth core


Nah, less core energy, less movement, less movement, less earthquakes

Pugwash
WA, 7671 posts
12 Jul 2011 1:17PM
Thumbs Up

^^^ I am glad you said that.

It is global warming that is leading to more earthquakes, as the earth expands.

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
12 Jul 2011 3:42PM
Thumbs Up

felixdcat said...

Co2 is the excuse for tax manipulation by the ALP. Look at it, you take money from the super (polluters?) rich, spread a bit on the low income population, a fair smaller amount on the middle class and almost nothing on the rich then you lower the free tax threshold to keep everyone happy, pocket a massive profit and blame the rising CO2 levels. Let get real that is the tax shake up we had to have


So is the carbon price in other countries also a plot but the Labor government. Is the conservative parties carbon scheme in England also tax manipulkation?

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
12 Jul 2011 3:59PM
Thumbs Up

Pugwash said...

log man said...

The tide has turned PW. Gillard now has a positive statesman like message to sell that could make Abbotts position very wedged. Those opinion polls are a bit rich though, one lot I saw were saying 50% of greens voters were unhappy with Gillard. But we all know on election day they will all go Labor or Green. I reckon the backroom boys at Liberal HQ will be starting to thjink of plan B


I sincerely hope you are right loggy regarding the message. I think it is time to moooooovee foarwarid, from appalling and disgusting to just plain bad


I think you may have misunderstood my point. If Gillard is not too badly damaged political before the Carbon Tax announcement then the level of support will only go one way after the announcement, towards labor. Gillard now has a message that says "we're saving the world,..... and we're giving you all a tax break" where as Abbots message is "no ya not". Add to this the fact that an election is 2 years away which gives the scheme a year to bed down and I really can't see the conservatives being too pleased on election night. Trying my best to be objective(very hard) my advice to the opposition would be, forget trying to bring on an election every 5 minutes and start to beat labor on policy. It's 2 years to the election and the fake tidal wave of hate will prove to be a ripple over that time.

Pugwash
WA, 7671 posts
12 Jul 2011 2:16PM
Thumbs Up

I wasn't thinking about more support for the Labs - this is almost given, present polling has the Labs as worst ever. Rock bottom will come. Surely their base will like them again one day.

And here I was thinking that it is merely our perception of Gillard that could move from appalling and disgusting to just plain bad.

I presume we agree that she, and the Labs, are appalling and disgusting

Macroscien
QLD, 6806 posts
12 Jul 2011 4:26PM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...

Macroscien said...

FlySurfer said...

Trant said...
We also have abundant uranium, wind and sun.

Would you be in favour of using those?


Yes, and even more in favour of geothermal.

Our tax money isn't going to any of these .


Do you all realize that by exploiting geothermal energy we actually contribute to lowering our mother Earth core temperature!
Atmosphere warming seems to be nothing in comparison.
Imagine gigantic task inherited by future generations in necessity to reheat Earth core


Nah, less core energy, less movement, less movement, less earthquakes



Vice verse. When cooling down it contracts , and crumpling of the crust on the surface only increase.
Next, when cooling down - magnetic field is disappearing (caused by rotating melted core ) then we will be in microwave oven not protected from cosmic radiation any more.
Our global warming by CO2 is bleak by comparison to microwave that heat you from inside out.
Lets introduce second tax - for reheating core. So one will be to cool atmosphere and second to heat the core-both good at this same time to save our planet.
Well , presented with such scenario I am ready to emigrate to the Moon- no atmosphere to warm up and core already cold mean - LESS TAXES.
Lets go to the Moon. I can see on the Moon's maps more sea's are there then on the Earth so I will take my windsurfing with me.

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
12 Jul 2011 4:31PM
Thumbs Up

Macroscien said...
Let go to the Moon. I can see on the Moon's maps more sea's are there then on the Earth so I will take my windsurfing with me.


I think I see the slightest of flaws in your plan

larry1950
1 posts
12 Jul 2011 2:38PM
Thumbs Up

And they say humans are the smart ones on the planet?

Pugwash
WA, 7671 posts
12 Jul 2011 2:43PM
Thumbs Up

Annabel Crabb...

...The 500 companies are not an identified list. The figure of 500 is just an estimate of how many companies in Australia would be caught by the scheme's eligibility rules.

Here's how it works: any company which has a facility (plant, factory, premises or similar) directly emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon a year will be forced to cough up $23 a tonne for that pollution. Now, this is a bit tricky, because it means a company with 20 facilities each emitting 24,000 tonnes of CO2 a year would not be liable, while some poor boob with one factory emitting 26,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and 19 clean green beansprout-fired tofu smelters would still have to cough up.


Or, in my words, 500 companies:

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
12 Jul 2011 2:53PM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

felixdcat said...

Co2 is the excuse for tax manipulation by the ALP. Look at it, you take money from the super (polluters?) rich, spread a bit on the low income population, a fair smaller amount on the middle class and almost nothing on the rich then you lower the free tax threshold to keep everyone happy, pocket a massive profit and blame the rising CO2 levels. Let get real that is the tax shake up we had to have


So is the carbon price in other countries also a plot but the Labor government. Is the conservative parties carbon scheme in England also tax manipulkation?

I know nothing about carbon tax in the UK all I can see is labor looking after their base support, the libs would probably go the other way around as per giving money to the big business hoping they would be able to use it to implement co2 saving procedures and the low income earner would get a pat in the back. The middle class would be screwed as well as it is the milking cow of every government every where in the world!
And don't get me wrong I am disappointed by Gillard performance but would never vote for the other mob of ”wonkers” as they have their head to high up in their “Harssses”[}:)].

Gunna1
154 posts
12 Jul 2011 2:56PM
Thumbs Up

Just how serious about this are the Govt when they take away all the incentives to Solar Power our homes when they should be encouraging everyone to go Solar.

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
12 Jul 2011 5:00PM
Thumbs Up

I think they're all pretty useless but heard a great interview with Mr Abbot yesterday morning.

: " So Mr Abbot, you say that if you come to power you'll remove the carbon tax?"
: "Yes"
: "Would you then also then remove the tax breaks and compensation payments that went with it?"
: "...."
: "I'll take that as a yes"

Well, it made me laugh.
(don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Julia either but Abbot is a much easier target)

FlySurfer
NSW, 4453 posts
12 Jul 2011 5:04PM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...

I think they're all pretty useless but heard a great interview with Mr Abbot yesterday morning.

: " So Mr Abbot, you say that if you come to power you'll remove the carbon tax?"
: "Yes"
: "Would you then also then remove the tax breaks and compensation payments that went with it?"
: "...."
: "I'll take that as a yes"

Well, it made me laugh.
(don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Julia either but Abbot is a much easier target)


Once it's in, it aint going anywhere... doesn't matter who's in power it will stay.
At least Abbott isn't a back stabbing proven liar.

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
12 Jul 2011 3:04PM
Thumbs Up

Trant said...

I think they're all pretty useless but heard a great interview with Mr Abbot yesterday morning.

: " So Mr Abbot, you say that if you come to power you'll remove the carbon tax?"
: "Yes"
: "Would you then also then remove the tax breaks and compensation payments that went with it?"
: "...."
: "I'll take that as a yes"

Well, it made me laugh.
(don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Julia either but Abbot is a much easier target)



Abbot as nochance to get to power! i am so certain that if he will you can change my namme to "Fat garden gnome"

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
12 Jul 2011 3:07PM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...

Trant said...

I think they're all pretty useless but heard a great interview with Mr Abbot yesterday morning.

: " So Mr Abbot, you say that if you come to power you'll remove the carbon tax?"
: "Yes"
: "Would you then also then remove the tax breaks and compensation payments that went with it?"
: "...."
: "I'll take that as a yes"

Well, it made me laugh.
(don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Julia either but Abbot is a much easier target)


Once it's in, it aint going anywhere... doesn't matter who's in power it will stay.
At least Abbott isn't a back stabbing proven liar.

How did he get the leader's job?????? did he ask nicely???????
Didn't he propose the co2 tax before the election?????



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"CO2 Taxation Australia" started by FlySurfer