Carbon Tax

[eastwest101]

Essential Media Poll Again:

Q. Do you support or oppose the Government’s carbon pricing scheme which was introduced in July 2012 and requires industries to pay a tax based on the amount of carbon pollution they emit?
[TABLE="width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 121"][/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

7 Mar 2011​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

14 June 2011​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

19 Sep 2011​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

21 Nov 2011​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

25 Jun 2012​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

This week​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

Vote Labor​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

Vote Lib/Nat​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

Vote Greens​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 121"]Total support[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

35%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

38%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

37%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

38%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

35%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

38%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

65%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

15%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

69%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 121"]Total oppose[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

48%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

49%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

52%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

53%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

54%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

48%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

22%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

76%​

[/TD]
[TD="width: 57"]

18%​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Now using the 2 Party Preferred data of 46% ALP to 54% Coalition - say we have 100 voters - I will give the Greens 6% out of the ALP 46%

40 ALP voters of which 9 oppose the CT and 31 support the CT
6 Green voters of which 1 oppose the CT and 5 support the CT
50 Coalition voters of which 38 oppose and 12 support the CT

Then add up the number of people who support and oppose the CT and its around 48 a piece, or maybe some sort of 50-50 split or 49-48.

That is my definition of "highly contested" and would explain why the debate has been long and robust.

I support more scientific inquiry and maybe precautionary action after the next federal election if all the parties could propose their own policies and actually stick to them. The solution should be broad based and without exceptions and removing all other distortionary effects of RET's and renewable subsidies. Even if those policies are - "learn more and then go to the polls if action is required" at least that would be honest with the public...

 

[777]

I would refer people to the UMPNER report which found that nuclear cost about the same solar power per kwh. It is as expensive as solar, which is a power source that Australia is pursuing. Therefore I reject any implication that nuclear is too expensive.

The big difference between nuclear and solar is the massive capital costs and the lifetime of risks/ clean up/ etc. The capital costs of solar are comparatively low so even if the cost per kwh is the same, the risk is much more spread over multiple sites or the lifespan of the investment. By contrast, with nuclear, a small blow out or delay can destroy the economics of the entire project whereas the risk is extremely effectively hedged with solar.

As far as i can tell, the debate about nuclear is pretty much theoretical because unless i've missed something no commercial entity or company is proposing to take the risk of building a nuclear plant regardless of the incentives or legal regime on offer. By contrast, a massive amount of commercial effort is going into building solar at both the large and small scale and minor changes to the pricing regime considerably accelerate that.

 

[eastwest101]

The problem with this statement is that the most vocal skeptics link opposition to the current policy to a reject of the current party running the government. That raises the obvious question as to their alternative. If the ALP has it wrong and need to be voted out, as this vocal minority claims, then they must be advocating a coalition government and hence must support their policies.

Agree a bit there medhead - in our democracy it a case of voting for the least bad bunch of idiots whom will do the lesser amount of harm. Not because you are a dedicated fan of all the policies that a particular party has....

Like any government - they will be voted out someday - its up to everyone who votes to make their own decisions about who is elected or not - we are still the lucky country when it comes to that.

 

[medhead]

The big difference between nuclear and solar is the massive capital costs and the lifetime of risks/ clean up/ etc. The capital costs of solar are comparatively low so even if the cost per kwh is the same, the risk is much more spread over multiple sites or the lifespan of the investment. By contrast, with nuclear, a small blow out or delay can destroy the economics of the entire project whereas the risk is extremely effectively hedged with solar.

As far as i can tell, the debate about nuclear is pretty much theoretical because unless i've missed something no commercial entity or company is proposing to take the risk of building a nuclear plant regardless of the incentives or legal regime on offer. By contrast, a massive amount of commercial effort is going into building solar at both the large and small scale and minor changes to the pricing regime considerably accelerate that.

IIRC correctly they compared whole of life cycle costs not just generating cost.

No one is actively proposing to build nuclear because it is banned in Australia. There was a group a few years ago who said they'd build if the ban was lifted. A lack of current proposals does not mean there is a lack of interest.


Sent from the Throne

 

[drron]

The big difference between nuclear and solar is the massive capital costs and the lifetime of risks/ clean up/ etc. The capital costs of solar are comparatively low so even if the cost per kwh is the same, the risk is much more spread over multiple sites or the lifespan of the investment. By contrast, with nuclear, a small blow out or delay can destroy the economics of the entire project whereas the risk is extremely effectively hedged with solar.

As far as i can tell, the debate about nuclear is pretty much theoretical because unless i've missed something no commercial entity or company is proposing to take the risk of building a nuclear plant regardless of the incentives or legal regime on offer. By contrast, a massive amount of commercial effort is going into building solar at both the large and small scale and minor changes to the pricing regime considerably accelerate that.

Well the Government of China is still actively considering nuclear power.I would call that a pretty significant entity.
As for risks solar power is more risky than nuclear power.The problem is that every nuclear incident is covered but few of the deaths due to solar power are covered as it is usually one at a time.
Here is just one article suggesting that solar is 3x more dangerous than wind and 10x more dangerous than nuclear when compared to the power produced-
Green deaths: The forgotten dangers of solar panels | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

 

[777]

Well the Government of China is still actively considering nuclear power.I would call that a pretty significant entity.

As i said it is simply not commercially viable. If you're all for a government takeover or massive direct taxpayer funded intervention in the electricity industry (which in the bizarro-world of current Australian politics is conservative policy and what it appears that a whole bunch of conservatives are indirectly advocating here) yes, it may be viable. But, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the world right now is a commercial entity putting up a serious proposal to cover the capital costs of nuclear power because no one can make the maths work. If anyone can find me an example i'd be happy to look at it.

As for risks solar power is more risky than nuclear power.The problem is that every nuclear incident is covered but few of the deaths due to solar power are covered as it is usually one at a time.
Here is just one article suggesting that solar is 3x more dangerous than wind and 10x more dangerous than nuclear when compared to the power produced-
Green deaths: The forgotten dangers of solar panels | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

There are multiple meanings of risk -- the one i was referring to above was the financial risk. I simply can't find anyone who wants to take it on on a commercial basis. But part of that is the insurance risk. Not because nuclear is particularly deadly (it isn't historically) but because the costs when it goes wrong are astronomical -- what will the cost be for TEPCO of compensating the farmers, home-owners, etc who are inside the exclusion zone? The other part of the financial risk is simply the massively long lead times required before you make a return on your capital.

I have no problem with nuclear power if a private consortium is willing to take the risk. If the pricing of carbon serves to make nuclear viable then that's all well and good. But let's not pretend that's what anyone is actually talking about.

 

[Mal]

I can't tell whether you're trying to continue the argument or concede it by linking to that. That's probably one of the last examples of the pre-carbon tax "sky is falling" scare pieces from July.

NoNews (mobile) has this strange quirk where sometimes they show old articles as "Latest News". I found this under "Latest News" and didn't see the date. My bad for posting it.

 

[medhead]

Hitachi seem to be making moves to expand their nuclear business by buying a venture to build reactors. PressDisplay.com - Newspapers From Around the World

 

[whatmeworry]

Looks like in the distance future renewables will cheaper then fossil.

THEY account for less than 4 per cent of our electricity generation now, but solar and wind could be cheaper than coal by 2030, according to the Climate Commission.
Chief commissioner Professor Tim Flannery said rooftop solar panels may already be cheaper than conventional electricity in areas with high power prices, such as south-west Western Australia, and some regional areas.
Solar generates about 0.3 per cent of the nation's electricity and he said the industry was set to boom as costs fell and markets expanded in places like India and sub-Saharan Africa.

Solar and wind could offer 'cheaper power than coal'

 

[drron]

Looks like in the distance future renewables will cheaper then fossil.



Solar and wind could offer 'cheaper power than coal'

If communities accept windfarms.Starting to get as many complaints as nuclear.

 

[RAM]

Track record of predictions

Looks like in the distance future renewables will cheaper then fossil.

Solar and wind could offer 'cheaper power than coal'

It all sounded good until you named the 'expert'. Given his prediction that Sydney's dams would never be filled again (amongst many other equally fallacious calls) it does not give me much faith in anything his self-interest position releases.

The cost for solar has plummeted recently - partly (just like in the flash memory industry) due to too much production capacity for non-Govt subsidised demand (unlike flash industry).

Both industries produce silicon wafers requiring ultra-expensive feedstock (pure silicon ingots +/or pure silicon ingot waste) multi-billion dollar fabrication facilities (for economies of scale) and immense power subsidies for silicon purification and production.

Currently many if not all solar plants are running at losses in a race to the bottom to drive the competition out of business. In the flash memory area it has taken 9 years so far and over $30billion in Govt subsidies, grants and tax holidays (as country champions are created and subsequently kept on life support in Taiwan, Japan, China, the EU and the US {eg:10yr tax free, no land tax, no payroll tax etc}).

The sooner Govts get out of the way (Carbon tax, grants, interest free loans with no security etc) and let companies with good ideas and efficient business practices succeed vs 'zombie' companies feeding off the tax payer until they eventually fail - the better.

 

[Mal]

Re: Track record of predictions

Interesting article:

Australian Securities & Investments Commission reports record company closures, many blame carbon tax | Latest Business & Australian Stock market News | The Courier-Mail

THE carbon tax is contributing to a record number of firms going to the wall with thousands of employees being laid off and companies forced to close factories that have stood for generations.

Soaring energy bills caused by the Government's climate change scheme have been called the "straw that broke the camel's back" by company executives and corporate rescue doctors who are trying to save ailing firms.

 

[ethernet]

Re: Track record of predictions

Electricity businesses affected worse.
1) Plastic recyclers - consequences, more landfill, more imports - this is SO wrong.
2) Aluminum Smelters (solidified electricity) - more to nuclear, greenhouse gas free France
3) Explosives and Fertilizer will be going if NG remains under priced in USA and way over in .au
4) Oil Refineries. RAAF will be in a pickle, if key inputs blocked. No gas = planes stuck on the ground.
5) Car Industry .. going going..go

against

Piggeries and imported pork from Europe (despite winter heating costs, still cheaper than QLD = subsidies)
Corn Syrup - huge subsidies.
Imported Petrol (no carbon tax on imports).
Imported Cement (not sure, but cement 8% of global emissions)
Imported CFC's/ Aircond. Was hit, but markup is excessive
Imported bricks! Yes, a crushed brick should be a crime.
Imported Steel.
Lucky for us ship bunker fuel is not counted as 0.001% by weight of WA iron ore is exported by sea.

Broadly, the carbon tax is killing jobs and lowering living standards as we go it alone for the feelgood feeling.
Given the near-miss asteroids and CA big-one overdue (and antibiotic resistance issue) we have national priorities dead wrong.
This is not news, but ****-***** policy of a bunch of caretakers.

 

[11sjw]

Re: Track record of predictions

This is not news, but c*ck-as*ed policy of a bunch of caretakers.

Which is what you end up with when you get into bed with the Greens and independents.

 

[ethernet]

Re: Track record of predictions

I'll try to keep politics out. But name one other county willing to let critical core industries like these be replaced by imports.
Cargo cult mentality to the extreme. Ditto for 457 workers and see how for they would go in the EU. Common sense out the window. I'll have to go to NZ soon: Feds could save billions on drugs: study.

 

[cove]

Re: Track record of predictions

Ethernet your post 1053 is exactly what I see. It is just so hard to see why Australia is losing its refineries when 70 years ago our supplies from Singapore were cut off.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.

 

[drron]

Re: Track record of predictions

But you haven't mentioned the biggie.The Carbon tax predicted to be raised has already been spent.Treasury is still sticking to a $29 a tonne of carbon when we will be tied up to the EU scheme in 2015 with carbon there priced at E5 per tonne.Big difference between what is already tied in as spending and what will be received.Another huge budget black hole.