Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Black Diamond: SET of 5 "new" C3 Camelots. (Tri-cams) Sizes 000, 00, 0, 1 & 2. Only 1 set left! (Be quick!)  $375.00
19% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Poll Option Votes Graph
Yes. Tax me please. I love taxes. 59
75% 
No. Are you nuts ? 14
18% 
Ha ha, I don't pay any tax. 6
8% 

 Page 6 of 9. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 170
Author
OT: Plebiscite
bones
23/06/2011
1:23:41 PM
On 23/06/2011 ni wrote:
>Petrol prices show that even quite large price rises do
>not reduce consumption much. A tax will have to be massive to be effective.

Bull. Petrol price rises have lead to a dramitic shift to fuel efficient cars. Every major car company is focussed on fuel efficiency. Mercedes C250 CDI BlueEfficiency, VW Passat TSI EcoFuel... The Prius was Japan's best selling vehicle in 2009, coincidently the same time as rising Japanese fuel prices were causing huge strikes across the country.You're petrol price example is inconsistant with your contention.
now
> bugger off
ni
23/06/2011
1:55:21 PM
On 23/06/2011 bones wrote:
>Bull. Petrol price rises have lead to a dramitic shift to fuel efficient
>cars. Every major car company is focussed on fuel efficiency. Mercedes
>C250 CDI BlueEfficiency, VW Passat TSI EcoFuel... The Prius was Japan's
>best selling vehicle in 2009, coincidently the same time as rising Japanese
>fuel prices were causing huge strikes across the country.You're petrol
>price example is inconsistant with your contention.
>now
>> bugger off
>

To anyone with an interest in science and an open mind (-sorry for the tautology)
read the ABARE data on petrol, diesel and gas consumption for 2000-2006
Yes,I agree, there was a small effect of prices on per-capita consumption (as alluded to in my previous comments about laudable individual efforts) , but on a national level (the important measure), there was not just a failure to make any progress towards the IPCC goal, but an overall increase in fossil fuel use.
ni
bones
23/06/2011
2:01:24 PM
On 23/06/2011 ni wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 bones wrote:
>>Bull. Petrol price rises have lead to a dramitic shift to fuel efficient
>>cars. Every major car company is focussed on fuel efficiency. Mercedes
>>C250 CDI BlueEfficiency, VW Passat TSI EcoFuel... The Prius was Japan's
>>best selling vehicle in 2009, coincidently the same time as rising Japanese
>>fuel prices were causing huge strikes across the country.You're petrol
>>price example is inconsistant with your contention.
>>now
>>> bugger off
>>
>
>To anyone with an interest in science and an open mind (-sorry for the
>tautology)
>read the ABARE data on petrol, diesel and gas consumption for 2000-2006
>Yes,I agree, there was a small effect of prices on per-capita consumption
>(as alluded to in my previous comments about laudable individual efforts)
>, but on a national level (the important measure), there was not just a
>failure to make any progress towards the IPCC goal, but an overall increase
>in fossil fuel use.
>ni

I wasn't arguing that overall fossil fuel use went up, I was arguing with your contention that rising prices wouldn't change consumer (and therefore producer) behaviour. The rise in petrol prices lead to a focus on more fuel efficient cars. That is a good thing. Just because it was outweighed by population growth and plasma TV's doesn't change that. I suspect that a rise in energy prices will lead to a focus to more energy efficient things, and a rise in carbon price will lead to more carbon effiicient things. That would be a good thing too. Price is a motivator that may change behaviour.

Gavo
23/06/2011
3:07:28 PM
I am very much into science...

Without having read the report, I can suggest that data from 11-5 years ago is not particularly relevant when you are talking about a mindset associated with a movement that did really pick up momentum until relatively recently.

Some 2007-2010 data would be far more relevant in my eyes

evanbb
23/06/2011
4:29:16 PM
On 23/06/2011 Gavo wrote:
>I am very much into science...
>
>Without having read the report, I can suggest that data from 11-5 years
>ago is not particularly relevant when you are talking about a mindset associated
>with a movement that did really pick up momentum until relatively recently.
>
>Some 2007-2010 data would be far more relevant in my eyes

There's data out there somewhere about how 'price inelastic' petrol is, can't remember where.

The summary is that petrol use for a lot of people is not negotiable. They need to drive to work. Worse, most of these people live in areas with terrible public transport, like Western Sydney. The thinking goes that taxing petrol is hence 'regressive' in that it hits those least able to pay it the hardest.

Read a piece somewhere that the way to fix this was to can the excise and apply the carbon tax. Problem is that would lead to a 30% decrease in the cost of petrol, which some consider a bad look.

Gavo
23/06/2011
4:55:31 PM
mmm Im honestly not sure.

I've kept my mouth shut on this one because I'm keen on science, not politics. Not my forte at this stage
maxdacat
23/06/2011
5:28:52 PM
On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:

>The Newcastle Alcoa plant uses 27% of NSW grid energy.

Sounds high and I'm not sure where the figure comes from. I can see that the Tomago plant seems to think they are the state's biggest energy customer:

http://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/Tomago%20Aluminium%20Company-8f179498-862b-4f36-a472-dba6b62aa90f-0.pdf

at 850 MW. Total NSW installed capacity is 18,000 MW

http://www.dtiris.nsw.gov.au/energy/electricity/generation

so this smelter's share at least is about 5%. Figures seem quite hard to come buy (ie i am mixing useage and installed capacity in the same equation) and as you point out the smelter's business model depends on cheap power. This really means a subsidy from consumers such as ourselves. Would be good to have better information about the true cost of these operations but I did come across a good paper although it is from 2002

https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP44.pdf

evanbb
23/06/2011
5:38:24 PM
On 23/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>
>>The Newcastle Alcoa plant uses 27% of NSW grid energy.
>
>Sounds high and I'm not sure where the figure comes from. I can see that
>the Tomago plant seems to think they are the state's biggest energy customer:
>
>http://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/Tomago%20Aluminium%20Company-8f179498-862b-4f36-a472-db
>6b62aa90f-0.pdf
>
>at 850 MW. Total NSW installed capacity is 18,000 MW
>
>http://www.dtiris.nsw.gov.au/energy/electricity/generation
>
>so this smelter's share at least is about 5%. Figures seem quite hard
>to come buy (ie i am mixing useage and installed capacity in the same equation)
>and as you point out the smelter's business model depends on cheap power.
> This really means a subsidy from consumers such as ourselves. Would be
>good to have better information about the true cost of these operations
>but I did come across a good paper although it is from 2002
>
>https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP44.pdf
>

You know there's a difference between capacity and energy use right?
One Day Hero
23/06/2011
8:46:30 PM
On 23/06/2011 bones wrote:
> The Prius was Japan's
>best selling vehicle in 2009,
>

You know that Prius's aren't that great, right? Sure, it makes you feel better about yourself, but on the highway/in the hills a small diesel car is way more efficient. The only place a Prius saves fuel is when its stuck in traffic in the city............and if you're really such a greeny, you should be on public transport for that commute anyway.

shortman
23/06/2011
8:56:27 PM
Prius's are darn dangerous in carparks. You can't hear 'em coming. Sneaky friggin things.
maxdacat
23/06/2011
9:49:30 PM
On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>
>You know there's a difference between capacity and energy use right?

Yes - what I was saying is that I could only get figures for the smelter's usage and total NSW capacity. I thought that was pretty obvious from what I had written. I'm not trying to attack you, but was querying the % which sounded high. On the information to hand i come up with a different number but feel free to correct me.
lacto
23/06/2011
10:52:16 PM
aluminium uses 1800 Mw in victoria . pt henry ,portland and bell bay via basslink with a coal capacity of 6500 mw and daily usage usually in the range of 4400 to 7000mw. Without the aluminium then the coal plants would have even greater ramping up and down to meet demand which they are not very good at . So you could say that without aluminium the brown coal plants would almost have to be cut back as their economics would be changed dramatically . Equally all the off peak discounts are also to keep these plants operating.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
23/06/2011
11:02:54 PM
>You know there's a difference between capacity and energy use right?

Damn right. Harley Davidson motorcycles (even of large capacity), have the wonderful ability to convert petrol to noise without the side benefit of horsepower!
;-)

IdratherbeclimbingM9
23/06/2011
11:14:43 PM
On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>There's data out there somewhere about how 'price inelastic' petrol is,
>can't remember where.
>
>The summary is that petrol use for a lot of people is not negotiable.
>They need to drive to work. Worse, most of these people live in areas with
>terrible public transport, like Western Sydney. The thinking goes that
>taxing petrol is hence 'regressive' in that it hits those least able to
>pay it the hardest.
>
>Read a piece somewhere that the way to fix this was to can the excise
>and apply the carbon tax. Problem is that would lead to a 30% decrease
>in the cost of petrol, which some consider a bad look.

Western Sydney?
~> A bit city-centric there ebb. I would suggest that rural folk spend more per capita on fuel than their city cousins.

>30% decrease in the cost of petrol, which some consider a bad look.

Why can't that 30% be recycled back into renewable energy or more fuel efficient technology?
Wendy
23/06/2011
11:49:40 PM
On 23/06/2011 rodw wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>
>>Australia could significantly cut their emissions by abandoning the aluminium
>>smelting sector. If it employs more than 10,000 people I will be very
>surprised.
>
>Tell that to the 10,000 people who depend on it...comments like that really
>undermine your "lets all hold hands and do our bit" mantra.....your bit
>to turn off a heater or two...their bit to loose job, house income and
>future.....

I get a bit over this "what about the people who will loose their jobs" reason for not taking a range of actions. It was very popular in the logging industry as well. Does anyone here think we should keep logging old growth forests because some jobs depend on it? Times change, industries change, needs and priorities change and people are also capable of change. We can't not make decisions for the overall good based on arguments like this. What we can do is ensure that people are supported in the necessary life changes though. Some people might still not like it. Lots of people don't like change. But there are no shortage of stories of people successfully and happily changing careers and learning new skillsets. In the end, many industries are going to change dramatically. Some are going to waste away. This has happened throughout history, and happens on a regular basis through "market forces" and where's all the objection to the effects that "market forces" are having on the poor aussie battler?
Wendy
24/06/2011
12:01:11 AM
On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>
>This is why a price on carbon is better than central decision making.
>Rather than the Government picking and choosing projects (which I think
>is a very bad idea, they do not have the capacity to make decisions and
>avoid risk like the plague) just price it and let the market decide.
>
I normally agree with you on most things, but are you really saying you think the market will sort out carbon emissions? I admit to being thoroughly cynical. I'd rather see swift government action enforcing emission reductions. I agree with ni that all this nannying around has had diddly squat effect. Although I'm not sure what answer s/he was offering there?
Wendy
24/06/2011
12:05:14 AM
On 23/06/2011 ni wrote:
but who have a complete contempt
>for the scientific research on what are effective, affordable and sufficient
>solutions.

So what were these solutions again?
>
>In 1990, the IPCC called for an immediate small reduction in emmissions
>in developed countries. Australia has gone nowhere near meeting this short
>term goal. Why? Despite the laudable efforts of many individual Australians
>in reducing their carbon footprint, their efforts have been completely
>negated by a massive 33% rise in the population of Australia since 1990,
>such that our national emissions are now higher.

>... (continues carrying on like a pork chop about population)

All this carrying on about population increase as the problem shts me. Yes, the population has gone up. But actually, the per capita emissions are pretty damn similar. These are the yearly per capita emissions in tonnes from 1990-2007.

Australia 17.2 16.6 16.9 17.2 17.1 17.1 18.1 18.0 18.7 17.3 17.2 16.6 17.1 17.1 16.9 17.9 18.0 17.9

And well, fck me, we're all still doing exactly what we did in 1990. So there's no holier than thou, we are all trying hard, but if only the govt didn't encourage all this baby making and immigration, we'd be doing much better.

evanbb
24/06/2011
7:10:49 AM
On 23/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>
>>You know there's a difference between capacity and energy use right?
>
>Yes - what I was saying is that I could only get figures for the smelter's
>usage and total NSW capacity. I thought that was pretty obvious from what
>I had written. I'm not trying to attack you, but was querying the % which
>sounded high. On the information to hand i come up with a different number
>but feel free to correct me.

I don't have a source, if that's what you're requesting. It was told to me by plant staff, while I was on site. That year they were 27% ofNSW grid electricity use.

evanbb
24/06/2011
7:13:52 AM
On 23/06/2011 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:

>Western Sydney?
>~> A bit city-centric there ebb. I would suggest that rural folk spend
>more per capita on fuel than their city cousins.

True, but rural consuers have the benefit of diesel fuel rebates. Anyway, it's what this paper said. Part of the key in the phrase 'Western Sydney' is that it is a swinging seat. Politicians are reluctant to piss them off.

>>30% decrease in the cost of petrol, which some consider a bad look.
>
>Why can't that 30% be recycled back into renewable energy or more fuel
>efficient technology?
It definitely should be. The problem is not in that it's a good idea, but that politicians are concerned about the appearance of lowering fuel prices to tackle global warming.

evanbb
24/06/2011
7:34:47 AM
On 24/06/2011 Wendy wrote:
>I normally agree with you on most things, but are you really saying you
>think the market will sort out carbon emissions?
No, I don't. I'm strongly of the opinion that economy-wide goals should be managed by Government for the top-down control, and agree on the penalties. But, that will take time and actually probably would crash the shit out of our economy. An astonishing amount of our resources income is based on industries that really need to change; probably a higher proportion of emissions intensive industries than any other country in the world, which I suspect is the reason the denialist movement has gained so much traction.

So, my long run goal is to reduce emissions, but I think the first step to doing that must be altering our economy in such a way that we change our emissions intensity. To do this you can either crash demand by closing industries or clean up supply by changing the stationary generating mix. Note 85% I think of our emissions are from burning coal for electricity.

I've spent this year working only on coal and it is astonishing how entrenched into our economy and infrastructure the whole industry is. The power plants are built literally on top of the deposits, in big clusters in the Hunter, SE Qld and Victoria. The big loads are built nearby, with the high capacity carriers in between, with the rest of the grid fanning out from those points. In general the best renewable sources are not currently power generating hubs, so the grid will have to be seriously unpicked and rebuilt to connect them all and get power back to areas of high demand. That's a big job.

And I don't think Government should deliver it. I don't think they have the capacity and their incentives are all wrong. When Government spends money, they are chiefly concerned with managing risk. 4 people died in broadly related circumstances while installing ceiling insulation and the papers made it sound like the world would end, imagine the cacophony if the power grid crashed, or if project costs blew out by 80, 100 billion dollars? So they choose very low risk projects and spend a long time thinking about how to do that. From what I have seen, private energy companies are far better set up to deliver these projects and quickly. Markets are good for this sort of thing because they provide an incentive to take risk, and risk is where the big breakthroughs and innovations are made.

I am pretty pessimistic about Australia's ability to achieve any targets. The task required, plus the level of public apathy combined with the current political state mean it's going to be 5 years at least before we start in any meaningful way. If we'd started 10 years ago, as the Greens suggested, we could well be sitting on some exceptional intellectual property to sell to the world and we'd be laughing about alumium smelting. But since then the growth in demand through more wide spread air conditioning use and uncertainty about the electricity market mean the grid is far less able to cope with change. We need something fast and innovative, set a price on carbon to drive innovation and let the smart people who are geared up for this stuff just go for it.

I admit to being thoroughly
>cynical. I'd rather see swift government action enforcing emission reductions.
> I agree with ni that all this nannying around has had diddly squat effect.
> Although I'm not sure what answer s/he was offering there?
>

 Page 6 of 9. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 170
There are 170 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints