Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[sptrawler]

But starcraftmazter, to even make c.p.u's requires a silicon smelter which again is quite energy intensive. Therefore our raw material will be exported to be processed in another country then we will have to import the processed silicon to make the c.p.u's.
It isn't that I disagree with your ideology it is just there has to be a better way of reaching the required end result than giving the government more money to waste.
A far better way ,I feel, would be for the government to impose limits rather than just imposing a tax with no measureable outcomes.
Also as is being reported in the papers, China is adopting a carbon reduction programme, why wouldn't we be looking at and adopting a common approach?
The governments approach basically is just to tax polluters and then add the tax to consolidated revenue, I know at the moment they are going to compensate people and use some to develop new technologies. But as has been seen in the past, by both sides of government , the original intent is soon forgotten and the government expands to absorb the increased tax revenue.
Then after it is proven to be a failure they go, oh well we will try something else, but the tax remains as well as the increase in marginal tax.
I may appear cynical but after living through several governments there is little to be confident about when it comes to believing that this is nothing other than a tax grab.
Why wouldn't the government instead of saying we are going to tax the miners, tell them unless they put in state of the art steel mills, they can't mine the ore?
Then tell the Bauxite miners unless they put in renewable energy supplies to their aluminium smelters they can't mine the bauxite.
Tell the miners unless they put in renewable power stations in remote regional towns of W.A and Queensland they can't mine there.
They wont do any of the above because it's not about actual outcomes it is about the tax they will collect.
Then when they prove, as we all know, that renewables can't supply base load and the gas shortfall is going to necessitate going back to coal the taxes stay and the outcome, as far as renewables, was just another blip in our journey.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

But starcraftmazter, to even make c.p.u's

just to give an example, I am not suggesting we start competing with Intel and AMD

just to give an example, I am not suggesting

just to give an example

I have no problem with any tax grabs so long as the revenues are used well. From what I've seen, the revenues from the ETS with fixed pricing will be used well enough, so I'm happy.

A lot of what you suggest is good in principle, but to have a free market economy, you need to have an efficient free market. The best way to use the free market to combat global warming is to put a price on carbon emissions, pure and simple. This has been shown in various government studies, and this is why various countries are using this method to move forward with action.

If we had a centrally planned economy we could easier build renewable power plants everywhere and do a lot of other things, but this is simply not the case. We must only act within the constraints of our economic system. And to have some sort of a wishy washy in-between is in my opinion inefficient.

The NBN is a good example. The free market will never in a million years build it, and for it to work a lot of crap has to happen, for instance, compensation for the private companies effected, a stand-down of the ACCC, etc. Then a repeat of all current problems when NBN is privatised.

This is the inherit inefficiency of the free-market economy, there is not point ignoring it.

 

[sptrawler]

I have no problem with any tax grabs so long as the revenues are used well. From what I've seen, the revenues from the ETS with fixed pricing will be used well enough, so I'm happy.

A lot of what you suggest is good in principle, but to have a free market economy, you need to have an efficient free market. The best way to use the free market to combat global warming is to put a price on carbon emissions, pure and simple. This has been shown in various government studies, and this is why various countries are using this method to move forward with action.

If we had a centrally planned economy we could easier build renewable power plants everywhere and do a lot of other things, but this is simply not the case. We must only act within the constraints of our economic system. And to have some sort of a wishy washy in-between is in my opinion inefficient.

The NBN is a good example. The free market will never in a million years build it, and for it to work a lot of crap has to happen, for instance, compensation for the private companies effected, a stand-down of the ACCC, etc. Then a repeat of all current problems when NBN is privatised.

This is the inherit inefficiency of the free-market economy, there is not point ignoring it.

The problem with your free market principal is the companies have no reason to invest in renewable or less polluting technology. They just keep passing on the extra cost untill the market can no longer bear it then close or relocate offshore.
This has been shown on numerous occasions in the past with our steelmaking in W.A, S.A and N.S.W most of our manufacturing even Solahart hot water systems moved offshore LOL.
When the multinationals start closing down Australian operations, the government drops it's bundle and folds like a pack of cards.
There is nothing in the proposed tax to encourage companies to invest in non profitable equipment or R & D.
Actually it is interesting you bring up the N.B.N you sound very much like another member, NBNmyths, he was well versed and very pro government also. LOL

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The problem with your free market principal is the companies have no reason to invest in renewable or less polluting technology. They just keep passing on the extra cost untill the market can no longer bear it then close or relocate offshore.

Actually that's contrary to how the free market works. Someone will figure out a way to eliminate the extra cost, their products will be cheaper, they will get more customers, and the companies unable or unwilling to adapt will die out. The reason for people to try and figure it out is to expand their business.

There is nothing in the proposed tax to encourage companies to invest in non profitable equipment or R & D.

It's not meant to do so directly, but through market forces.

Actually it is interesting you bring up the N.B.N you sound very much like another member, NBNmyths, he was well versed and very pro government also. LOL

I'm not pro government, I'm pro-doing the obviously good thing.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

I don't disagree but does that mean that we shouldn't care about the short-term impacts of our economic decisions?

Only so far as to allow us to take responsible long-term economic decisions.

Um did you mean to say long-term environmental or economic in answer to my question? I'm kinda guessing from your brief answer to the above and I think I'm guessing wrong. Would you mind elaborating on your answer?

Why do you think this is written into the charter of the RBA? I know this is somewhat of a leading question, but I want to try and figure out how you came to your viewpoint.

To confuse people into thinking that we need to be part of the global banking cartel.

If the RBA really abided by those principles, they wouldn't have let the mother of all ponzi schemes that is our housing bubble build up - let alone to the stage it has.

That's...um....an interesting (if somewhat jaded and conspiracy theorist) response. It's all just a massive con perpetuated by every Reserve Bank in the world? I don't mean to ridicule your response, but it is just a bit silly really.

What I was looking for is some appreciation of those subtle shades of grey I referred to before. With a stable and prosperous economy there are a number of advantages that our country has. Without a stable and prosperous economy what happens? Well for a start...higher levels of unemployment. We enjoy quite low levels of unemployment in Australia. We know that high levels of unemployment creates two major things.... An increasing class divide between the rich and poor...and increasing levels of crime (as desperation drives people to do things just to survive). Probably not something we want to have happen as it's a characteristic of a third world country.

Also, just for the sake of making sure you understand....the RBA raises interest rates in order to effect a level of control in the Housing market. (I say level of control because they can only influence, they can't send the RBA special forces out in jackboots with machine guns to stop people purchasing property). This is the mechanism that they use to price some households out of the market (IE, reduce demand and so slow the price "bubble" you refer to)...you are aware that this is what they have been doing for a while now? What else would you have them do?

We as in Australia, or we as in the world? Unfortunately we don't seem to have the power to force other countries to do the same as us.

Australia. Any sort of an argument along the lines of, "we can't do it because nobody else does it", has the obvious flaw that everyone can go around in a circlejerk saying that forever while nobody does anything - someone has to stand up and do what is right. That is apart from the fact that the world's more advanced countries are already using an ETS or are planning to implement one.

Ah no that wasn't going to be my discussion point. I agree it's a pointless and circular argument to say they aren't doing it why should we. What I'd like to discuss is that since other's have gone before us, surely we can learn from their example?

We can look at what others have done and make an assessment whether it is successful at achieving the goals it was set out to do? Current data that I have seen is that we cannot make this claim. The ETS system appears to be easily rorted. I have to ask myself the question... Is an ETS scheme the only solution to the goals and aims of a greener cleaner tommorrow? Sptrawler for example kinda made my point. If the objective is to create a greener outcome there are other ways to achieve this rather than through a taxation mechanism. If I was a cynic I'd say that Governments like it simply beacuse it increases the tax base, rather then the results the scheme achieves.

What is the cause for your pessimistic attitude towards the future?

Many reasons. Overpopulation, resource & energy depletion & complete lack of recycling of said resources, unsustainable nature of the world's economy, lack of freshwater, global warming, increasing world propagation of cancer causing substances in food, rampant corruption everywhere, worldwide banking cartel wanting to make everyone it's slaves, probably suppression of technologies which can solve at least some of these problems by governments, stupid people who don't even bother finishing highschool (in Australia's case), magnitude of resources and money wasted on useless crap as opposed to scientific research

The whole world is turning into ****. This planet is full of stupid people and problems, so how can anyone wonder why people who take an interest in what's really going on have a pessimistic view of the future?

Wow! Stop the world I want to get off eh? So just so I'm clear how would you compare all of the above in your generation, to someone your age in say the early 1930's? Someone in your family (perhaps multiple people) have been killed in WWI. It was the war to end all wars. There is still a crapload of international tension around the world because of it and a breakdown in international trade. Black Tuesday has occurred and they had to put up nets to stop stockbrokers who jumped out the windows harming people on the streets below. There is no end in sight for what they are calling the Great Depression. If you are damn lucky you have a job because 29% of the population are without one. If you're really lucky you're living in a house, not a shack that has been hastily built in fashionable ghetto style with enough room for a garden to grow vegetables. Crime is rampant and murders are on the increase and suicides are commonplace. The police and government are seen as corrupt and incompetent.

I'm not shaking my cane and saying you kids have it easy I had to walk five miles to school in the snow uphill both ways. I merely wish to point out that your current assessment of our conditions may not be as bleak as it first appears.

More specifically for Australia, our housing bubble,

Again with the housing bubble? *sigh* Joe tends to frown on discussions of property that get a bit out of hand and vocal. Perhaps let me just that the Housing market, unlike the share market, is a) not a homogenous one, b) weak efficiency, c) is driven by specific drivers, and finally d) I have no sympathy for people who don't do their homework and overcapitalize on a highly leveraged investment. As far as I am concerned there is no "bubble" that you speak of. There is just the normal effects of the developing property cycle being loudly and hysterically shouted by the media to anyone who will listen.

our soon to be over mining boom,

Um how soon? Within five years? Ten years? Fifty years?

and the state of government finances once **** hits the fan, let alone other economic impacts on our country. Oh and of course, our politicians (all major parties equally so) are extremely short-sighted and throw money at people to get elected, rather than enacting long-term policies which benefit the country. Leaders from major parties aren't even capable of answering questions directly. The exception is of course, the Greens.

The two best summaries of at the very least the economic problems we face are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXZzx9pAmQ (30 parts I think)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

I did point out I was a busy guy right? You really think I'm going to sit through 30 parts of a you-tube video? Or a 45 minute documentary? Perhaps if I get time I'll see what they have to say...but um..yeah I didn't watch them...do I have to?

If you had a choice between acting on an environmental initiative now and causing significant damage to our economy, or waiting a few years to make the same environmental initiative and not cause the damage...which would you do?

First of all, I would like to point out the inherit flaw in your assumption that action you take years in the future will have the same effect as action you take now, to combat a problem which gets worse every year.

Um actually that's your projection. I was going to point out that the effect was likely to be greater in the future simply because there would be greater funds available with which to address the issues.

Second of all, I would like to point out again, that I do not believe that our economy will be any better at any point in time in the foreseeable future.

If you disregard the above - or even if you disregard the second as it can be said to be an opinion rather than fact, the obvious answer is yes. But the first is not an opinion, it is a reality of the challenges we face.

I don't disregard your response at all. I don't agree with it but I don't disregard it. You've said that you have a long-term focus, but cannot seem to appreciate that people are just people, no matter what time they are living in.

They aren't stupid people, they are just people, who by and large all have the same aims and goals...that for the vast majority of them they wish that things stayed the same and they were left in peace to live.

When you start thinking that the world is full of stupid people that don't agree with you it's perhaps not too far a stretch to start thinking that perhaps the world is full of the wrong kind of people. Wasteful, horrible and nasty people who aren't doing as they should...perhaps we should line them up against the wall, but don't give them a cigarette...that would be polluting.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[sptrawler]

I have no problem with any tax grabs so long as the revenues are used well. From what I've seen, the revenues from the ETS with fixed pricing will be used well enough, so I'm happy.

A lot of what you suggest is good in principle, but to have a free market economy, you need to have an efficient free market. The best way to use the free market to combat global warming is to put a price on carbon emissions, pure and simple. This has been shown in various government studies, and this is why various countries are using this method to move forward with action.

If we had a centrally planned economy we could easier build renewable power plants everywhere and do a lot of other things, but this is simply not the case. We must only act within the constraints of our economic system. And to have some sort of a wishy washy in-between is in my opinion inefficient.

The NBN is a good example. The free market will never in a million years build it, and for it to work a lot of crap has to happen, for instance, compensation for the private companies effected, a stand-down of the ACCC, etc. Then a repeat of all current problems when NBN is privatised.

This is the inherit inefficiency of the free-market economy, there is not point ignoring it.

Actually it is a bit strange that you use the free market economy to support your ETS. Yet you recommend an isolationary market principle when you discuss selling our raw materials.
What more efficient way of bringing about improvements in emmissions and energy consumption than force the companies to use their "super profits" to do it.
Adding another layer of bureaucracy and taxation has never brought about a good outcome in the past.
We have had it constanly rammed down our throats that goverment intervention or direct participation reduces efficiency.
I guess you must work for one of the departments that is going to benefit from the introduction and administration. Unfortunately I think the next election will tend to prove whether you have the support of the general population
Also your comment that you have no problem with a tax grab as long as it is used well. When applied to this government it would be a whole new experience for them to spend money well IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

First of all, there is a significant difference. For instance, if we made CPUs (just to give an example, I am not suggesting we start competing with Intel and AMD), the amount of money obtained from exporting them, far exceeds the amount of money the raw materials used to make them cost.

My main objection to the carbon tax is that it directly encourages the export of raw materials an import of manufactured goods.

Of course we should focus our exports more toward processed and manufactured items rather than the "dig it up and sell it" approach we have today. Doing so would add massive value and is far more sustainable. Just one problem though - it would send our electricity use and CO2 emissions through the roof.

Victoria and especially Tasmania followed this course of economic development through much of the 20th Century. The full story is complex, but the Greens weren't exactly keen on those big brown coal plants (Vic) and hydro dams (Tas) that provided the energy. Indeed it was this issue that broght the Greens into being in the first place.

 

[Logique]

The Greens moaned for years (as an argument against the woodchip industry) that Tasmanian woodchips should be processed and value-added domestically.

So Gunns said ok and went to an industrial area at Bell Bay with plans for a paper mill. The Greens response - not on your life. Surprising nobody.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Um did you mean to say long-term environmental or economic in answer to my question? I'm kinda guessing from your brief answer to the above and I think I'm guessing wrong. Would you mind elaborating on your answer?

Basically whatever long-term action you need to take, only consider the short-term consequences once it is decided what broad set of goals you need to achieve in the long-term. Once you have decided on that, you can think about the best way to achieve them with regard to short-term consequences - but such as to not compromise what you will achieve in the long-term.

That's...um....an interesting (if somewhat jaded and conspiracy theorist) response. It's all just a massive con perpetuated by every Reserve Bank in the world? I don't mean to ridicule your response, but it is just a bit silly really.

What exactly is silly? Over the last 20 years we have had a massive credit bubble build up, especially in housing. The RBA exists (among other reasons) to prevent that sort of thing, as it will always have a very negative outcome for the economy. Yet overtime they lowered interest rates to allow for more and more borrowing. They failed miserably. Call it however you like, but there is nothing theoretical about this.

What I was looking for is some appreciation of those subtle shades of grey I referred to before. With a stable and prosperous economy there are a number of advantages that our country has. Without a stable and prosperous economy what happens? Well for a start...higher levels of unemployment. We enjoy quite low levels of unemployment in Australia. We know that high levels of unemployment creates two major things.... An increasing class divide between the rich and poor...and increasing levels of crime (as desperation drives people to do things just to survive). Probably not something we want to have happen as it's a characteristic of a third world country.

This is all nice and well, but I fail to see what it has to do with what I said, other than it will not be like you described once the credit bubble bursts. So are you agreeing with me that our central bank (along with politicians and regulators) have helped create the worst possible scenario for us?

Also, just for the sake of making sure you understand....the RBA raises interest rates in order to effect a level of control in the Housing market. (I say level of control because they can only influence, they can't send the RBA special forces out in jackboots with machine guns to stop people purchasing property). This is the mechanism that they use to price some households out of the market (IE, reduce demand and so slow the price "bubble" you refer to)...you are aware that this is what they have been doing for a while now? What else would you have them do?

Actually no;

From about 1987, they have failed completely. What they should have done, is raise the interest rates so high, as to eliminate all excess demand until such time that houses stopped rising in price past inflation. This would force people to actually save money to buy houses and not speculate over them.

The governments are also to blame of house for toxic housing policies, FHOG type nonsense, failing to legislate a minimum deposit of around 50%. Regulators are also to blame for allowing banks to lend so much and to be so highly leveraged on home loans. Overall there is a lot of blame to go around to everyone who has influence in our economic policies and directions.

We can look at what others have done and make an assessment whether it is successful at achieving the goals it was set out to do? Current data that I have seen is that we cannot make this claim. The ETS system appears to be easily rorted. I have to ask myself the question... Is an ETS scheme the only solution to the goals and aims of a greener cleaner tommorrow? Sptrawler for example kinda made my point. If the objective is to create a greener outcome there are other ways to achieve this rather than through a taxation mechanism. If I was a cynic I'd say that Governments like it simply beacuse it increases the tax base, rather then the results the scheme achieves.

There may well be better ways, and it's fine to critisise the government for not doing a better job, but since the ETS is all we have, and the opposition will not give us even that, I fail to see what alternative there is, politically.

I'm also wondering what you refer to when you say it can be easily rorted?

Wow! Stop the world I want to get off eh? So just so I'm clear how would you compare all of the above in your generation, to someone your age in say the early 1930's? Someone in your family (perhaps multiple people) have been killed in WWI. It was the war to end all wars. There is still a crapload of international tension around the world because of it and a breakdown in international trade. Black Tuesday has occurred and they had to put up nets to stop stockbrokers who jumped out the windows harming people on the streets below. There is no end in sight for what they are calling the Great Depression. If you are damn lucky you have a job because 29% of the population are without one. If you're really lucky you're living in a house, not a shack that has been hastily built in fashionable ghetto style with enough room for a garden to grow vegetables. Crime is rampant and murders are on the increase and suicides are commonplace. The police and government are seen as corrupt and incompetent.

That is completely irrelevant in the face of the problems I outlined in my view. It was a very temporary (in the scale of human history) phenomena, and there were no underlying problems with the world which were unfixable that prevented a recovery.

Fast forward to today, we have a massive amount of titanic problems which are absolutely not fixable (at least not without completely changing the way the world works, and getting rid of all politicians...and as if that will happen). If you think the great depression was bad, then I suggest that the future is much much worse.

It may not look it now because we are only at the start, but just wait....

Even if you look at the world now, most people are slaves to the banking cartel through interest. At least there was no slavery during the great depression?

Again with the housing bubble? *sigh* Joe tends to frown on discussions of property that get a bit out of hand and vocal. Perhaps let me just that the Housing market, unlike the share market, is a) not a homogenous one, b) weak efficiency, c) is driven by specific drivers, and finally d) I have no sympathy for people who don't do their homework and overcapitalize on a highly leveraged investment. As far as I am concerned there is no "bubble" that you speak of. There is just the normal effects of the developing property cycle being loudly and hysterically shouted by the media to anyone who will listen.

Well we can disagree on that I suppose, until the housing market crashes :

Um how soon? Within five years? Ten years? Fifty years?

I would say before 4 are up, but probably sooner.

I did point out I was a busy guy right? You really think I'm going to sit through 30 parts of a you-tube video? Or a 45 minute documentary? Perhaps if I get time I'll see what they have to say...but um..yeah I didn't watch them...do I have to?

No, just posted them in case you're curious or don't understand why our (and everyone else's) economy is bound to catastrophically collapse.

Um actually that's your projection. I was going to point out that the effect was likely to be greater in the future simply because there would be greater funds available with which to address the issues.

Greater funds? How exactly? The entire developed world is in massive debt, we have a large, aging population and healthcare and welfare costs will shoot through the roof. How exactly is any country, on a macroeconomic scale, going to have more funds in the future, when a record low amount of people will be working for every one person in retirement?

I don't disregard your response at all. I don't agree with it but I don't disregard it. You've said that you have a long-term focus, but cannot seem to appreciate that people are just people, no matter what time they are living in.

They aren't stupid people, they are just people, who by and large all have the same aims and goals...that for the vast majority of them they wish that things stayed the same and they were left in peace to live.

Well too bad...they need to wake up from their daydream, because things are going to get a whole lot worse, and significant sacrifices need to be made in the present for there to even be a future.


(Continued below due to post size limited)

 

[Starcraftmazter]

When you start thinking that the world is full of stupid people that don't agree with you it's perhaps not too far a stretch to start thinking that perhaps the world is full of the wrong kind of people. Wasteful, horrible and nasty people who aren't doing as they should...perhaps we should line them up against the wall, but don't give them a cigarette...that would be polluting.

I don't think the world is full of stupid people because they don't agree with me, rather because they choose to buy all sorts of stupid useless crap, overpriced houses, max out their credit cards, know nothing about politics or economics or science, or anything worth a damn - yet they have the audacity to have opinions and vote based on them, on political, economic and scientific matters. Largely what you said. I don't like them, not one bit. Worse yet, they raise children without the capability to teach them how to properly navigate the world, as to have a good idea regarding everything that is going on, and make correct decisions for themselves and future generations.

You only need to look at the present carton "tax" and it's effect on polling. I bet a lot of people don't like it simply because they have the impression that it will somehow cost them money - meaning they are unwilling to pay even a little tiny bit more for environmental action, but rather waste their money in ipads and other crap.

Disgusting.

Actually it is a bit strange that you use the free market economy to support your ETS. Yet you recommend an isolationary market principle when you discuss selling our raw materials.

One is a realisation of the best course of action with regards to what we have to work with, and the other is an idea of how things should work in the best possible way (if I could change the way the world works).

What more efficient way of bringing about improvements in emmissions and energy consumption than force the companies to use their "super profits" to do it.

This is pretty much what the ETS does? It takes away money from companies and puts it into research and improvements (among other things).

Adding another layer of bureaucracy and taxation has never brought about a good outcome in the past.
We have had it constanly rammed down our throats that goverment intervention or direct participation reduces efficiency.

Maybe, but the free market will never without government intervention do what is right or responsible. There is no way to make companies do what is right, it must indeed be rammed down their throats.

I guess you must work for one of the departments that is going to benefit from the introduction and administration.

No, I work for a private company which has nothing to do with the government, please stop with the stupid assumptions.

Also your comment that you have no problem with a tax grab as long as it is used well. When applied to this government it would be a whole new experience for them to spend money well IMO.

They won't do it worse than companies (yacht parties with expensive wine) or people (cloths, ipads, restaurants, McDonalds) - that's for sure.

Of course we should focus our exports more toward processed and manufactured items rather than the "dig it up and sell it" approach we have today. Doing so would add massive value and is far more sustainable. Just one problem though - it would send our electricity use and CO2 emissions through the roof.

Not if this was done with clean energy!

 

[Smurf1976]

Not if this was done with clean energy!

Indeed that is true.

However, in order to do it with clean energy we need (1) a source of clean energy and (2) industry to use that energy.

If we are going to switch production to clean energy then that will not be acheived by first shutting down production and then trying to build a clean energy system. That is the wrong way around. What we need to do is retain and expand production, then build the clean energy system.

The problem is, the carbon tax / ETS has the primary effect of permanently relocating production rather than actually advancing viable clean energy. It never achieves an outcome of production using clean energy.

The problem is one of timing. 50 years from now we're not going to be relying predominantly on coal (or gas) for electricity that is pretty certain. But there's no sense whatsoever in using this as a reason to relocate key industeies offshore - what, exactly, does that achieve for the environment?

 

[sails]

...The problem is, the carbon tax / ETS has the primary effect of permanently relocating production rather than actually advancing viable clean energy. It never achieves an outcome of production using clean energy.

The problem is one of timing. 50 years from now we're not going to be relying predominantly on coal (or gas) for electricity that is pretty certain. But there's no sense whatsoever in using this as a reason to relocate key industeies offshore - what, exactly, does that achieve for the environment?

I agree, Smurf. But I think this is something that hasn't been thought about yet. As have said before, if this carbon tax is another ill thought out policy, it is going to be the mother of all labor debacles - and Gillard's in particular.

There is nothing about carbon tax that makes any sense for the Australian environment or the economy, imo.

 

[RandR]

Indeed that is true.

However, in order to do it with clean energy we need (1) a source of clean energy and (2) industry to use that energy.

Hey smurf, i notice your vastly more knowledgable about energy/electricity then me or most of the people here, I wonder what your opinion is on the Zero Emissions Plan ?

Is it something that to your knowledge sounds reasonable ? Or is it a pile of **** ? Do the costings seem wrong in your opinion, or fairly right ? I believe it cites the majority of electricity to be produced by solar thermal tech. Do you think this tech is at the stage where it can take up baseload power ? Sorry to bombard you with the questions, but generally interested to hear your thoughts.

The report can be found here - http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/

 

[Wysiwyg]

Zero Carbon Australia is an independent, not-for-profit organisation. We receive no government or industry funding.

Yet government through the Prime Minister harps on about carbon reduction. Like grants allotted to the Chinese in preference over the Australian solar panel manufacturer. The governments solution is to tax it. So fake. Sad to watch really.

 

[sptrawler]

Hey smurf, i notice your vastly more knowledgable about energy/electricity then me or most of the people here, I wonder what your opinion is on the Zero Emissions Plan ?

Is it something that to your knowledge sounds reasonable ? Or is it a pile of **** ? Do the costings seem wrong in your opinion, or fairly right ? I believe it cites the majority of electricity to be produced by solar thermal tech. Do you think this tech is at the stage where it can take up baseload power ? Sorry to bombard you with the questions, but generally interested to hear your thoughts.

The report can be found here - http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/

I am sure smurph will give a thorough answer when he gets on line.
However here is my take on it.
Australia consumes approximately 222million MW/hr per year. The cost per MW/hr to produce it is for coal $79, gas $97, wind $1502 and solar $4004.
So do the sums at present it is 18 times dearer to produce with wind and 50 times dearer with solar.
How much do you think it will effect you and Australias manufacturing.
IT IS FRIGHTENING BE SCARED
As far as base load goes renewables are useless, what happens when the wind isn't blowing hard enough or there isn't enough sun.
Untill mankind comes up with a better storage sytem (battery) that can store the excess generated capacity when it is making power and release it when it is not, renewables will have limited application.
To sum up its a pile of *****, the government knows it and doesn't care if it works or not they get the tax anyway.

 

[ghotib]

Hey smurf, i notice your vastly more knowledgable about energy/electricity then me or most of the people here, I wonder what your opinion is on the Zero Emissions Plan ?

Is it something that to your knowledge sounds reasonable ? Or is it a pile of **** ? Do the costings seem wrong in your opinion, or fairly right ? I believe it cites the majority of electricity to be produced by solar thermal tech. Do you think this tech is at the stage where it can take up baseload power ? Sorry to bombard you with the questions, but generally interested to hear your thoughts.

The report can be found here - http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/

Smurf commented on this plan in the hysterical thread. Overall he gave it 97 out of 100 and thought it could work with a few tweaks. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17955&p=642456&viewfull=1#post642456

Ghoti

 

[Starcraftmazter]

However, in order to do it with clean energy we need (1) a source of clean energy and (2) industry to use that energy.

If we are going to switch production to clean energy then that will not be acheived by first shutting down production and then trying to build a clean energy system. That is the wrong way around. What we need to do is retain and expand production, then build the clean energy system.

The problem is, the carbon tax / ETS has the primary effect of permanently relocating production rather than actually advancing viable clean energy. It never achieves an outcome of production using clean energy.

These are all good points, but I would like to ask how you would propose this be done? Green energy costs more than coal. The way around this is to price coal emissions - because they do come at a price, a very high cost of dealing with a deteriorating climate.

Whether you price emissions through a market ETS or force industry to use green energy, it will not be as cheap as coal, so the end effect is the same as it is now.

How exactly would you suggest we circumvent this?

 

[drsmith]

Whether you price emissions through a market ETS or force industry to use green energy, it will not be as cheap as coal, so the end effect is the same as it is now.

How exactly would you suggest we circumvent this?

You better start by turning off the computer, turning out the lights and having an early night.

No fossil fuel heating in the bedroom either.

 

[sptrawler]

These are all good points, but I would like to ask how you would propose this be done? Green energy costs more than coal. The way around this is to price coal emissions - because they do come at a price, a very high cost of dealing with a deteriorating climate.

Whether you price emissions through a market ETS or force industry to use green energy, it will not be as cheap as coal, so the end effect is the same as it is now.

How exactly would you suggest we circumvent this?

First of all you ensure the technology is available and proven before you commit to using it. Most of what is being suggested as being suitable for our base load requirements is in its infancy and yet to be proven technology.
It would seem to me that the correct way would be to wait untill alternatives are available before your start penalising your industry to adopt them.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

First of all you ensure the technology is available and proven before you commit to using it. Most of what is being suggested as being suitable for our base load requirements is in its infancy and yet to be proven technology.
It would seem to me that the correct way would be to wait untill alternatives are available before your start penalising your industry to adopt them.

This is exactly what has been happening for a very very very very very long time now (emphasis on the very). It has produced no results. It is time to drag the industry kicking and screaming, as there really is negative time left for action.