Carbon Tax

[kezsco]

Increasing electricity prices by A$0.02 / kWh (based on a A$20 / tonne of CO2) is radical action? :shock: Network capacity enhancements have already put electricity prices up A$0.10 - A$0.15 / kWh. That would be equivalent to pricing carbon at A$100 to A$150 / tonne of CO2.

There is NO WAY that increasing electricity prices A$0.02 / kWh will harm anything other than to make renewables A$0.02 / kWh cheaper than coal or gas power.

I would just like to say that $.02 AUD a kWH is actually a big deal to wind farms. If this was direct income to a wind farm (as opposed to being a cost to a coal fired generator), then the approx 150mW windfarm that we are currently looking at (producing over 500,000mW/hours per year) would gain an extra 10million AUD per year revenue. Over an expected 20 years, this is 200 million AUD, which is roughly half the capex cost of the wind farm. This is a huge impact...

Of course this is just a dream, there's no gift to renewables, it's just making non renewable energy fractionally uncompetitive... uncompetitive enough that new coal fired power stations won't be built in favour of other renewable energy alternatives.

 

[drron]

I am sorry but once again showing that things such as CO2 levels are going up does not prove what is going to happen because of those increasing levels.Predictions have been made over the years that are not happening,others have happened such as extreme weather events but there are alternate explanations.By the way our long range weather forecaster up here on the Sunny Coast was able to forecast them 9 months prior to their occurrence and not because of rising temperatures.
The effects on our environment of rising CO2 is based on computer modelling,just as sub prime mortgages were,yet the computers didn't foresee the GFC.
Again in science there is an hypothesis which is then tested against what happens.The Hypothesis is that rising CO2 levels will have dramatic impacts on the environment.Merely showing that those levels are still rising in no way tests the hypothesis.

 

[connieguy]

I would just like to say that $.02 AUD a kWH is actually a big deal to wind farms. If this was direct income to a wind farm (as opposed to being a cost to a coal fired generator), then the approx 150mW windfarm that we are currently looking at (producing over 500,000mW/hours per year) would gain an extra 10million AUD per year revenue. Over an expected 20 years, this is 200 million AUD, which is roughly half the capex cost of the wind farm. This is a huge impact...

Of course this is just a dream, there's no gift to renewables, it's just making non renewable energy fractionally uncompetitive... uncompetitive enough that new coal fired power stations won't be built in favour of other renewable energy alternatives.

The carbon tax will not generate any direct income for renewable energy generators. It is a tax on those that emit CO2.

What will happen is coal based generators will need to sell their energy for A$0.023 / kWh more while gas based generators will need to sell their energy for ~$0.01 / kWh more to recover the carbon tax. That will, in effect, make renewable energy generators more cost effective as their cost of generation will not increase as they will not pay any Carbon Tax. Renewable energy generators, such as wind, already receive 1 REC (Renewable Energy Credit) per MWh (1,000 kWhs) generated. Current REC pricing is around A$25 or A$0.025 / kWh. So giving the renewable generators the carbon tax as a credit would allow them to double dip and that will not happen.

 

[connieguy]

I am sorry but once again showing that things such as CO2 levels are going up does not prove what is going to happen because of those increasing levels.Predictions have been made over the years that are not happening,others have happened such as extreme weather events but there are alternate explanations.By the way our long range weather forecaster up here on the Sunny Coast was able to forecast them 9 months prior to their occurrence and not because of rising temperatures.
The effects on our environment of rising CO2 is based on computer modelling,just as sub prime mortgages were,yet the computers didn't foresee the GFC.
Again in science there is an hypothesis which is then tested against what happens.The Hypothesis is that rising CO2 levels will have dramatic impacts on the environment.Merely showing that those levels are still rising in no way tests the hypothesis.

So what is causing the Arctic Ice Cap to accelerate it's loss of mass?




What is causing the Methane levels over the Arctic to increase?



What is causing global temperatures to increase?



What is causing global temperature increases to occur more in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere?



What is causing CO2 levels to increase and to accelerate the rate of increase?



The answer is several billion cars and millions of fossil fuel power plants.

There is no need for a computer to tell you what will happen to the mass of the Arctic Ice Cap or what will happen to Methane in the atmosphere as the Ice Cap melts or what will happen to global temperatures as both CO2 and Methane levels increase or what will happen to atmospheric CO2 levels. Just look at the trend lines. It is as clear as the nose on your face. We did this, we are responsible for what is happening now and for what will happen in the future.

 

[drron]

So what is causing the Arctic Ice Cap to lose mass?

View attachment 2895

What is causing the Methane levels over the Arctic to increase?

So why is the Ross shelf gaining is if the rate of increase in temperature is increasing?
Why has the IPCCs prediction that Global warming will reduce record low temperature events not occurring?
Why on your map of global temperatures is Australia cooling?
Why did the glaciers of Glacier Bay melt 150-250 years ago?
You are the one making assertions as to the effects of Global warming.You need to provide the evidence that the drastic effects are indeed happening.
I have accepted Global warming so merely parrotting the CO2 levels etc is not going to convince me.Prove that those measurements are having the effects predicted.

 

[connieguy]

So why is the Ross shelf gaining is if the rate of increase in temperature is increasing?
Why has the IPCCs prediction that Global warming will reduce record low temperature events not occurring?
Why on your map of global temperatures is Australia cooling?
Why did the glaciers of Glacier Bay melt 150-250 years ago?
You are the one making assertions as to the effects of Global warming.You need to provide the evidence that the drastic effects are indeed happening.
I have accepted Global warming so merely parrotting the CO2 levels etc is not going to convince me.Prove that those measurements are having the effects predicted.

Nothing I have presented is based on predictions. What I have presented is measured effects that are happening now and have happened in the past. As for the Australian cooling , that data is based on measurements made in May 2011. Winter in Australia.

My focus is not on isolated spot events. It is on the constant and accelerating loss of ice mass in the Arctic Ice Cap and the resultant localized temperature increase, which is driving increased Methane release, which increased the localized GH effect, which then accelerates the Ice Cap mass loss..........

To me nothing else is as important as the melting Arctic Ice Cap and the increased Methane release. Nothing comes close. Nothing.

You may be interested in this Nasa generated global temperature distribution from 1884 to 2010:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003800/a003817/2010updatewithdates_30fps.m4v which answers your question about Australia.

 

[drron]

Nothing I have presented is based on predictions. What I have presented is measured effects that are happening now and have happened in the past. As for the Australian cooling , that data is based on measurements made in May 2011. Winter in Australia.

My focus is not on isolated spot events. It is on the constant and accelerating loss of ice mass in the Arctic Ice Cap and the resultant localized temperature increase, which is driving increased Methane release, which increased the localized GH effect, which then accelerates the Ice Cap mass loss..........

To me nothing else is as important as the melting Arctic Ice Cap and the increased Methane release. Nothing comes close. Nothing.

You may be interested in this Nasa generated global temperature distribution from 1884 to 2010:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003800/a003817/2010updatewithdates_30fps.m4v which answers your question about Australia.

Sorry you are not listening to me.It is the predictions based on the measurements that are the important fact-they are the tests of the hypothesis generated by the measurements.
Sorry the NASA chart doesn't answer my question-your previous map was for May 2011 showing that despite all that methane,CO2 and ?warming Australia was cooler that month compared to average-not what the predictions said should happen.Now it was just 1 month so I know that proves nothing,meaning your point using that map proved nothing either.

If the whole Arctic Ice cap melts that wont raise sea levels dramatically if there is no effect on the Antarctic ice mass-10 times larger than the arctic.

 

[yeldarb8]

Re: Carbon Tax - JOBS to become Australia's biggest export industry

That's right. Jobs, fewer of them for Australians. A local unilateral carbon tax will just shift production of goods and services offshore. This will export jobs overseas and undermine our terms of trade. Prices will rise, and so the RBA will be forced to increase interest rates to rein in inflationary pressures. It's a bad tax, and it's bad policy for Australia. The net impact on global green-house gas emissions will be ZERO. This Parliament has no mandate for this policy. The people should be demanding an election on this issue.

 

[LAH]

If you follow this logic, then why does Australia bother at all? Seriously, why why why bother? What's our % of emissions globally? It's soooo minimal that anything we do is negligible so we shouldn't even care, bother, or worry. Let's just consume and use as much as want till our hearts desire, because at the end of the day .... China or whoever country still pollutes much more.

Data collected by CDIAC for the United Nations had us at 16th in the world for carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture - not bad for a country with a small population. I don't know the answers, but our emissions are not minimal. :evil:

 

[LAH]

Data collected by CDIAC for the United Nations had us at 16th in the world for carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture - not bad for a country with a small population. I don't know the answers, but our emissions are not minimal. :evil:

oops, should say that this was 2007 data!

 

[connieguy]

Sorry you are not listening to me.

With respect I am.

It is the predictions based on the measurements that are the important fact-they are the tests of the hypothesis generated by the measurements.

I have not posted anything about predictions. What I have posted is measurments about what is happening now. From those measurements and the resultant trend lines, you do not need a computer to understand what is going on and what will happen.

Sorry the NASA chart doesn't answer my question-your previous map was for May 2011 showing that despite all that methane,CO2 and ?warming Australia was cooler that month compared to average-not what the predictions said should happen.Now it was just 1 month so I know that proves nothing,meaning your point using that map proved nothing either.

The animation I posted was based on yearly averages which do show Australia is hotter, on average, than in the past.

If the whole Arctic Ice cap melts that wont raise sea levels dramatically if there is no effect on the Antarctic ice mass-10 times larger than the arctic.

If the Arctic Ice Cap melts, what happens at the South pole matters not. BTW if just 50% of the Greenland ice cap melts, which it will if the Arctic Ice Cap melts, sea levels worldwide will go up around 10 meters. As I have said for many posts, the Canary in the Coal Mine is the Arctic Ice Cap and the level of Methane over the Arctic.

 

[drron]

With respect I am.

Then you do not understand what I am saying


I have not posted anything about predictions. What I have posted is measurments about what is happening now. From those measurements and the resultant trend lines, you do not need a computer to understand what is going on and what will happen.

Until you do post about predictions you wont change my mind.Merely measuring does not prove what will happen.


The animation I posted was based on yearly averages which do show Australia is hotter, on average, than in the past.




If the Arctic Ice Cap melts, what happens at the South pole matters not. BTW if just 50% of the Greenland ice cap melts, which it will if the Arctic Ice Cap melts, sea levels worldwide will go up around 10 meters. As I have said for many posts, the Canary in the Coal Mine is the Arctic Ice Cap and the level of Methane over the Arctic.

Absolute rubbish.The Antarctic has 80% of the World's ice,Arctic 10% and 10% elsewhere-Himalayas,Andes even NZ.

 

[gumpy]

If the Arctic Ice Cap melts, what happens at the South pole matters not. BTW if just 50% of the Greenland ice cap melts, which it will if the Arctic Ice Cap melts, sea levels worldwide will go up around 10 meters. As I have said for many posts, the Canary in the Coal Mine is the Arctic Ice Cap and the level of Methane over the Arctic.

During the natural periods of warming was Greenland under ice?

What happened during pre-human times when the methane was around.

 

[connieguy]

Absolute rubbish.The Antarctic has 80% of the World's ice,Arctic 10% and 10% elsewhere-Himalayas,Andes even NZ.

Rechecked my resources. Make that a 7 meter (23 feet) sea level increase if the Greenland Ice sheet melts.

 

[drron]

During the natural periods of warming was Greenland under ice?

What happened during pre-human times when the methane was around.

From Wikipedia-
From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[SUP][9][/SUP] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. Norse Greenlanders submitted to Norwegian rule in the 13th century, and the kingdom of Norway entered into a personal union with Denmark in 1380 and from 1397 was a part of the Kalmar Union.[SUP][10][/SUP]
The settlements, such as Brattahlíð, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[SUP][11][/SUP] Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic,[SUP][12][/SUP] with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree.[SUP][13][/SUP] What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.[SUP][14][/SUP] Similarly the Norse Book

 

[TOC]

Hey guy's. Maybe there is a problem, maybe not. I personally don't know
What I do know is that according to julia, 3 out of 10 of us are going to be TAX'd more, something she promised not to do. Does that make our prime mistress a lier?
Anyway, award seats might be easier to get soon as less people fly.

 

[connieguy]

During the natural periods of warming was Greenland under ice?

Natural periods of warming? For the last millions years this is as warm as it gets. But yes Greenland has been ice free and has had lush growth. However those warming periods were caused by massive volcanic eruptions, that in the end, wiped out most of the life on the planet.

What happened during pre-human times when the methane was around.

Over the last 450,000 years the max level of Methane was around 700 ppb:
File:Vostok 420ky 4curves insolation.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Methane is now around 2,000 ppb or about 3 times as high as it has been in 450,000 years.

Over the same 450,000 years, peak CO2 was, from the chart above, around 280 ppm. It is now 395 ppm or about a 50% increase.

Understand that Methane is 25 times the GHG as is CO2. So 2,000 ppb of Methane has the same GH effect as would 50,000 ppb or 50 ppm of CO2. So very small amounts of Methane can have a much bigger warming effect than can CO2.

 

[ethernet]

Hey guy's. Maybe there is a problem, maybe not. I personally don't know
What I do know is that according to julia, 3 out of 10 of us are going to be TAX'd more, something she promised not to do. Does that make our prime mistress a lier?
Anyway, award seats might be easier to get soon as less people fly.

Its about lowering living standards.

If you are a net saver and own your own house, you are hardly likely to forgo spending $1000-$2000 for living in an uncomfortable house, rather just pay-up.

People who are time poor, or chasing deals - will fly - at even $100 ton, won't make no difference, other than in countries without this cost impost, will be busy undercutting Australian jobs and industry.

You will be paying more for less, and if you won't adjust, you will be worse off. Single people and really unemployed people will bear the brunt, as they will have no 'family benefits' to hide behind. People in less temperate or remote locations will pay a lot more, so much for inland or regional growth.

Because this not being done via regulation (just 50 companies) Vs global tax, you don't have to think too hard, the middle class is going to cop it. Compound price increases mean it will become a nett revenue raiser to pull the 'practically bankrupt states' out the mess.

When push comes to shove, well pay rather than cut back 'necessities'. The PM is going to be very unpopular - some say 'Yes Minister' courageous.

 

[drron]

Natural periods of warming? For the last millions years this is as warm as it gets. But yes Greenland has been ice free and has had lush growth. However those warming periods were caused by massive volcanic eruptions, that in the end, wiped out most of the life on the planet.

However it is believed that the majority of the Greenland ice cap is approx 110000 years old.
And as to warmth the warmest year in Greenland in the last 200 years was 1941,the warmest decades the 30s and 40s.the coldest decade the 1910s after the eruption of 2 of their volcanoes.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

 

[kezsco]

The carbon tax will not generate any direct income for renewable energy generators. It is a tax on those that emit CO2.

What will happen is coal based generators will need to sell their energy for A$0.023 / kWh more while gas based generators will need to sell their energy for ~$0.01 / kWh more to recover the carbon tax. That will, in effect, make renewable energy generators more cost effective as their cost of generation will not increase as they will not pay any Carbon Tax. Renewable energy generators, such as wind, already receive 1 REC (Renewable Energy Credit) per MWh (1,000 kWhs) generated. Current REC pricing is around A$25 or A$0.025 / kWh. So giving the renewable generators the carbon tax as a credit would allow them to double dip and that will not happen.

Correct, the carbon tax doesn't create direct income. As I said, that .02c AUD/kWh is but a pipe dream for renewable energy generators/projects. My point was to highlight that .02c kWh was actually a bigger deal when scaled up than most people realise.

And yes, RECs are the subsidy for renewable energy. And you are correct, current smale scale REC pricing is around $25. However, large scale REC pricing is officially trading at around $40 a REC. This would apply to wind projects, geo thermal, CSP (concentrating solar power), etc...

It should be noted that current PPAs (offtakes by energy retailers) being written are above both the current REC + black (price for electricity) price. Whilst REC is $40 and black is at $35 to $40, this would make the offtake between $75 to $80. However, PPAs are being written starting at $100. This would put the unofficial REC price at closer to $60, which is where it was envisioned to be when the system was initially implemented. There is a reason why PPAs are so high, but won't go into it here.

Anyway, agree with you GoWatson. There is absolutely no reason for us to be using coal fired generators. Large scale renewable is cheaper in the long run than coal these days. O&M costs are less and the resources (coal, oil) consumed are minimal. Given that renewables can be scaled down to systems so that we can produce energy locally (where required), reduces T&D losses and less need to spend more $$s on T&D infrastructure (which is a much higher impact than the proposed carbon tax!).