This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new

Thanks for that Dr. I missed it last night.

That Swan is tricky. No sorry, stupid is a better word. Is he REALLY the holder of the Aussie purse. No wonder we are going down the gurgler.
 
Logique said:
I think the tradie meant 27C in summer and 22C in winter? I wouldn't mind 27C in summer, but 22C in winter is just too tropical. I mean seriously, put on a jumper.
Click to expand...
No, Logique. He meant exactly as I reported it in my earlier post.
In summer he cools his whole house 24/7 down to 22 degrees.
In winter he heats his whole house 24/7 up to 27 degrees.
Says "hate wearing jumpers".


Calliope said:
They also promised us global warming. They lied.
Click to expand...

So true. I'm still waiting for the climate to warm sufficiently to allow me to go back to NZ to live.


Totally agree, sails. What an inconsiderate and stupid thing to do.
It's this sort of nonsense that puts reasonable people off the environmental movement.
 
Point of fact: Coal trains have played havoc with passenger train services through the Hunter for years. Just sayin'.
 
ghotib said:
Smurf are you aware of any modelling or studies of how expensive and technically difficult it is to greatly increase small-scale distributed generation? Home solar is the extreme I guess...
Click to expand...
There are two real issues here:

1. Conventional generation being able to respond to greater changes in load than at present (noting that it has enough trouble efficiently dealing with load variation as it is).

2. Capability of the distribution system to tolerate reversal of energy flows (ie from houses to the grid during daytime when most consumption is by business), rather than the traditional "one way" model.

Issue 1 can be worked around through the use of pumped storage (since hydro turbines have very fast response times due to their simplicity) or using open cycle gas turbines. Reliance on the latter is somewhat self defeating however, since they are inefficient in their use of gas - we might just as well build a more efficient gas power station and not worry about the wind etc in that case.

To a limited extent the system can just absorb reasonable levels of wind, solar etc. But not if we're talking about getting a large share of total generation from intermittent sources.

Issue 2 gets a bit technically complex, but it basically comes down to Ohm's Law (which is itself "electricity 101").

Basically and in layman's terms, if current flows through a wire then there will be a loss of voltage over distance due to the resistance of the wire.

A simple example that you could prove for yourself at home. Get a long extension lead, a double adaptor, a desk lamp (ordinary bulb not fluoro) and a fan heater. Plug the lamp and heater into the same extension lead.

Now, with the lamp turned on switch the heater on and off. You'll see that the lamp dims when the heater is on - that's because of voltage being lost ("voltage drop") in the extension lead due to the high current drawn by the heater.

For the same reason you've probably read somewhere that you shouldn't leave a long cable coiled up when in use or cover it with a rug etc. That's because that voltage being lost ends up as heat. Cover it up and it will get hot, possibly hot enough to be a serious problem (fire).

If you have any big appliances at home (eg large "built in" electric heaters), you might notice that the lights dim slightly when you turn it on. That's the same "voltage drop" again, only this time it's in the cable between the power pole out in the street and your household switchboard. Many people observe this effect when the air-conditioning starts up.

Now, all of this applies throughout the entire distribution and transmission system. Move current from A to B and there's some voltage drop.

Now here's the complicated bit. Just as you get voltage drop if applying a load, you get the opposite (ie voltage rise) if you start putting electricity back into the system (technically it's still voltage drop, but in the reverse direction). That's not a major problem for one house, but if you put solar panels on every roof across whole suburbs with little business in the are (ie not much power used during working hours), then we're talking about significant variations in voltage caused by the fluctuation in power flows. Variations that are big enough to be a problem.

I'm not aware of any Australian studies into the scale of what can be achieved. But I would simply say this. At the level where solar, wind etc are simply supplementing conventional generation (coal, gas, hydro) from the grid there isn't going to be a huge problem. By that I mean at a level where there is still a net flow from the grid into your suburb or town at all times. There will be localised issues (already happening in some places, to the point that solar systems shut themselves down due to voltage rise) but to a large extent they could be fixed.

But on the other hand, if we get to a situation where the suburbs are effectively powering the city centre during working hours, thus causing a net power flow out of the suburbs, then there are going to be issues with voltage rises and drops along the way that are beyond what can easily be overcome with the existing grid.

Much the same applies to generation. It can cope of distributed generation is supplying 10% of the load with conventional power stations still maintaining control over grid frequency via the other 90% of generation. But try reversing that and it becomes like trying to steer a bus going forward at highway speed whilst looking out the back window - it's a disaster just waiting for the slightest hiccup to make it happen. It's the conventional power stations, not small distributed ones, that maintain control of the system as a whole - they need to be supplying a decent amount of the load to be able to perform that role effectively.

So overall, distributed generation can work as a supplement to conventional generation, in which case it simply appears to the system as a reduction in load. But if we get to the point where it overtakes conventional centralised generation then we've got a problem.

How good is the condition of the grid? It varies hugely around the country, given that so many different organisations are looking after different bits of it. There are very good parts, and very bad parts. South Australia is notable as having a lot of issues with the distribution system not being able to cope with high loads during hot weather - in short it was never intended to cope with widespread use of air-conditioning.

There's also the question of how good it really needs to be? Here in Tasmania we had a very basic (to be polite) transmission system from day 1 until very recently. The old Hydro-Electric Commission was always more focused on building power generation schemes and selling the power produced with transmission just being something they had to have in order to make that work. And with such a huge focus on providing cheap power, which was always the ultimate prize, they spent as little as possible on transmission. Nonetheless, the system was 99.95% reliable - that's only 4 hours per year without power for a typical customer.

Then in 1998 it was split into separate generation (the Hydro), transmission (Transend Networks) and distribution (Aurora Energy) companies and an outright fortune has been spent on network upgrades by Transend and Aurora, seemingly unimpressed with the Hydro's minimalist (cheap as possible) efforts over the previous 84 years.

The end result is that 15 years ago we paid 6.6 cents unit for general power which was cheap by any standards. Now we're paying 22.6 and it's about to jump to about 25 cents at the end of June. Average reliability is slightly higher, but we're paying a lot of $ for a slight improvement on something that worked 99.95% of the time anyway.

Personally, I'd seriously question the value of all that spending but others will disagree. Suffice to say that Aurora isn't exactly held in high regard these days, and soaring bills are the reason for that. Plenty of people aren't happy. Yes they have a more reliable supply. Trouble is, now they can't afford to use it...

I do think we need a reliable supply into Sydney, Melbourne etc. But I'm not convinced that it's really worth spending a fortune to make sure the lights dont go out for a few hours in Huonville. Nor am I convinced that it's worth trying to have absolute reliability in supply to a paper mill or zinc smelter when it's no secret that their prime concern is price above all else.

As for solar... Paying 60c gross was madness but a deal is a deal as far as I'm concerned. The uncertainty in NSW and with the various national schemes over the years combined with negative media reports isn't encouraging consumers to go solar that's for sure.
 
The great problem is that the industry recovers fixed distribution and transmission costs via the energy rate, a situation which gives rise to a financial incentive to sell as much power as possible (thus potentially over recovering fixed costs = pure profit).

There was an attempt to charge separately for the separate costs tried in Tas during the 90's but it was a political disaster and I doubt we'll see anyone try that again anytime soon anywhere in Australia. Plenty of people from around the country were watching what happened back then, and nobody would likely be brave enough to try it again.
 
It's a big cold universe. We are unbelievably lucky to have a planet warm enough for human habitation. For those wanting to worry about climate, 'Snowball Earth' is the real story, and I hope everyone watched Tony Robinson on SBS last night.

It was only the good fortune of a sufficiently large volcanic eruption that broke the icy grip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
"....The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, some time earlier than 650 million years ago. The geological community generally accepts this hypothesis because it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes...

...The Snowball Earth hypothesis was originally devised to explain the apparent presence of glaciers at tropical latitudes. Modeling suggested that once glaciers spread to within 30 ° of the equator, an ice-albedo feedback would result in the ice rapidly advancing to the equator..."
 
Logique said:
It's a big cold universe. We are unbelievably lucky to have a planet warm enough for human habitation. For those wanting to worry about climate, 'Snowball Earth' is the real story, and I hope everyone watched Tony Robinson on SBS last night.
Click to expand...

Yes it was interesting. But I was completely **** that they kept showing that computer simulated graphic of the ice cap spreading throughout the globe like a giant tsunami of ice. I'm sure that when it happened it was a gradual freezing and slow build up of ice through accumulation of snow.
 
What Tony Windsor wants to know,

The Productivity Commission was asked to estimate the effective carbon price per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent faced by the electricity generation sectors in competitor economies and selected industries.
Click to expand...
And, the answer is..........

Wait for it...........

............

The Productivity Commission hasn't been able to come up with effective carbon prices for Australia's main trading partners.
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...re-carbon-prices/story-fn3dxity-1226072294637
 
Good question!

Wish Tony Windsor was prime minister.
 

Always fascinated me this, Where is the closest glacier to Australia?
West Papua (Irian Jaya), well and truly in the tropics.
 
Logique said:
It's a big cold universe. We are unbelievably lucky to have a planet warm enough for human habitation. For those wanting to worry about climate, 'Snowball Earth' is the real story, and I hope everyone watched Tony Robinson on SBS last night..
Click to expand...
G'day JB. Building on this theme, and here is yet another experienced scientist who doesn't agree that the science is settled: http://www.iceagenow.com/Prepare_for_Ice_Age_Now_says_top_paleoclimatologist.htm Prepare for Ice Age Now, says top paleoclimatologist, By Terrance Aym, THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW! 28 Mar 11

Quoting one of the most highly respected paleoclimatologists - George Kukla, 77, retired professor of paleoclimatology at Columbia University and researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory:

Kukla asserts all Ice Ages start with a period of global warming. They are the the harbingers of new Ice Ages. Actually, he explains, warming is good. Ice Ages are deadly and may even kill millions.

Can Mankind stop it? No. Just as humanity cannot affect the long term climate of the planet, neither can it stop an Ice Age from happening. The climate is primarily driven by the sun.

During a lengthy interview with Gelf Magazine, Kukla explained: "What is happening is very similar to the time 115,000 years ago, when the last glaciation started.... Believe it or not, the last glacial started with 'global warming!'" A recent revelation by NASA and the ESA is that that the sun is going to fall into a quiet period for the next 30 to 50 years.

That exceptional solar minimum cycle is expected to start in 2014, perhaps earlier.

It seems the odds are good that the Earth will slip into an extended cooling, or so-called mini-Ice Age. Whether that becomes an extended 100,000 year full-fledged Ice Age even Kulka doesn't know.
 
It never ceases to amaze me when this government of ours uses modelling like the IPCC to satisfy their own argument on Global Warming, or perhaps I should say climate change, as reason to introduce a carbon dioxide tax.

Physicist Clive Best has commented on actual data graphs produced by Hadley CRU and UAH in comparison to the IPCC modelling used by this Labor government.

If they had any decency left in their bones, why can't they look at these comparisons and admit their mistakes?


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...rmail/comments/wheres_that_dangerous_warming/
 
On the news today - there's a plan to cut non-CO2 emissions from new cars. This will add around 2.5% to the cost of an new car.

It sounds reasonable on the surface, until you realise that:

1. The means of cutting emissions, particularly from diesel vehicles, adds directly to CO2 emissions.

2. The price increase will be largest for the more fuel efficient engine technologies (due largely to point 1 above).

3. Higher new car cost = fewer cars sold = more old cars on the road = higher fuel use and emissions from these older vehicles.

I'm not actually against the move, but it shoots to pieces any notion that CO2 is the top priority or anything like that. It's clearly quite some way down the list, behind HC, NOx and PM10 emissions (in layman's terms that's unburnt fuel, oxides of nitrogen and particles respectively).
 
IFocus said:
Is there anyone else who comes close to Paul Kelly?

I don't think so dread the day he retires
Click to expand...
Agree absolutely, IF.
I notice he has been dropped from "The Insiders" this year. The program is the poorer for the lack of his incisive summary of the week's political events.
 
What is a worrying sign for Australia is the price of living.
They are talking about a 30% increase on electricity prices by mid 2013.
With our manufacturing and retail businesses on their knees, this could brake the camels back.
We all know "bean counters" run pretty much everything these days and with extra costs hitting profits, well that extra cost gets passed on from the wholesaler to the middle man to the consumer and in some cases jobs will go!
I think this is going to have a massive effect on our economy and a way of living standards we have today.
Then we get hit with a Carbon tax on top of that, which is a big mistake in my opinion. It is going to get even more messy.
Maybe the RBA won't have to raise interest rates because the price of living is doing the job for them but I very much doubt it and then that might be the last nail in the coffin for people that are struggling to make the re-payments with the out of control price hikes ie: council rates, fuel, electricity, water, gas, food, insurances,flood levy tax, school fees, day care fees and on and on and on! WHAT EVER HAPPEN TO CPI!
I hope it does not happen but I can see the "writing on the wall"!
Fighting "CLIMATE CHANGE" so they say.... is going to be very costly with a very minimal result on our climate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
10K
Telamelo
T
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...