Jupiter warming?

gooner said:

The problem may be that energy use is very inelastic and demand may not reduce that much - think of petrol when the price was heading to $2 a litre

Click to expand...

gooner said:

Not sure if I misunderstood your question or am stating the obvious, but less electricity means less greenhouse gases as electricity is produced by burning coal.

Arguably, given the ETS is just a tax, there may be reductions in tax in other areas to offset it. So, it is not necessarily a bad outcome for everyone financially. And we save the planet, to boot, assuming you believe in global warming of course

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what taxes would be reduced to offset the additional expense for business, industry and householders. When did governments ever reduce taxes other than personal income tax?

My view is as you stated previously, i.e. that electricity use is pretty inelastic. I don't know anyone who uses more than they need.

At least, Gooner, you've been good enough to postulate a suggestion.

In this thread and others the assertion has been repeatedly made that researchers will produce the result required by those who are paying them.
Whilst I'm absolutely prepared to believe in the reality of such a suggestion,
I'm just not able to so far understand why the government of Australia is determined to adhere to or promote research which is going to be very costly to individuals and organisations, and - if some suggestions are to be believed - will risk wrecking our economy more than it is already.

Julia said:

My view is as you stated previously, i.e. that electricity use is pretty inelastic. I don't know anyone who uses more than they need.

Click to expand...

Some rough figures:

15% is guaranteed consumption (assuming society doesn't collapse etc)

15% competes directly with other energy sources or efficiency (eg gas, oil, wood)

5% could be saved through outright conservation at moderate cost (as distinct from efficiency)

55% could be offshored very easily if the economics warranted such a move. Indeed it already has been offshored from someplace else, that's how it ended up in Tas in the first place. This is and always has been (for almost a century) a truly global market and it's where any real reduction in Australian electricity consumption would occur - by exporting it to another country.

10% could be offshored in an extreme high price / physical shortage scenario.

Those are my figures but I'd be pretty confident they are about right for present electrical load in Tasmania. The 55% one is certainly right and is pretty well known to the general public (though the media often quotes it around 60%).

The numbers would be pretty similar in Qld. The other states, especially SA, have less that can be offshored but it's still a very substantial part of their toal loads.

Even mars has melting ice caps.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Perhaps Earth is heating up the solar system
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm