What Carbon

[dfcatch]

Or just plain greed by the corporate sector:



Wholesale power supply is rather perversely priced on the basis on capacity, rather than actual usage. All the power companies need to do, is to justify a network that can provide supply on the busiest day of the year, then charge it all back to consumers regardless of whether that capacity is actually required, or used. That's the real explanation for your rising power bills.

No - it's PART of the reason.

A big part.

I never said the Carbon Tax and RET are the ONLY reasons.

It's all part of the mix.

 

[SeatBackForward]

No - it's PART of the reason.

A big part.

I never said the Carbon Tax and RET are the ONLY reasons.

It's all part of the mix.

9% as opposed to 70%?

 

[Limewood]

Let me guess: you weren't at a Mensa meeting?

In all seriousness, if you get your news from Murdoch tabloids and listen to too much talk back radio and hang out with people who do the same of course you won't have any idea. If you are genuinely interested in the answers to those questions the answers are very easy to find.

Let me google that for you

As for where the money went:

Source: https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/fac...ur-guide-to-the-carbon-tax-and-compensations/

Never thought to type into Google "what is china doing to reduce carbon emissions" or USA or india etc etc.

We get one Murdock Tabloid The Cairns Post, I don't recall seeing anything in there advising where the funds went and how much carbon was saved.

I recon the Feds should have advised us all in plain english what the carbon tax was about and how much our actual carbon output was being reduced by.

 

[RAM]

What are you on about? Clearly you're incapable of following a complex argument. You've quoted my response to a completely separate question out of all context. That was a reply about why we do not have nuclear in Australia. It has zero to do with nuclear in china.

I raised nuclear in china to address you're rant about china doing nothing to reduce emissions. It's a completely separate discussion! Then you're dragging in some other cough from a third discussion. If you want to see verbaling how about someone who drags in quotes from completely separate discussions and uses them out of context. Then drags in irrelevance about the pricing of solar panels. (How is that even relevant?)

If you look really closely you'll see that I have quoted your posts in full. A courtesy that you are incapable of returning.

As for answering questions perhaps you might try actually answering my questions instead of personally attacking me. That is one way to get me to answer a question in return. In any case the numbers to support my claim have been provided by someone else. I'm certainly secure in the consistency of my position against out of context quoting and false conclusions.

Dear Medhead - in your multiple posts in this thread you have reworded or imputed a reference 18 times. You have copied the entire message you are responding to 4 times - 2 of those this morning.

Many different people have answered your questions and you then resort to answering their questions with another question. To the point that other posters who have similar views have tried to answer on your behalf as you repeatedly refuse to. Please lift the veil and reveal your answers to the questions asked - not just more questions.

 

[RAM]

The problem for you is that the nuclear plans of china disprove your claim they're doing nothing about pollution. If they were doing nothing they'd stick to only building coal power plants. A smooth transition is dependent of a mix of energy sources. And china is much more advanced at addressing pollution than Australia.

Medhead where do I claim "They are doing nothing" please copy the exact quote where I said that. Until you can find the exact words please cease on this topic as it is tiresome to deal with.
"...china is much more advanced at addressing pollution than Australia."

Speaking on a topic that you are seriously uninformed on is beneath you (or at least should be). Do some research on that statement rather than invent assertions and then issue an appropriate retraction. You may note that other people in this thread have included links to the information (as I have repeatedly) whereas you predominantly make a claim with no substantiation.

 

[dfcatch]

Did I miss anything guys??

 

[777]

Did I miss anything guys??

Physics and economics mainly.

 

[dfcatch]

Physics and economics mainly.

Defending failed policy on the basis of purity, is like the salesman being proud of ensuring all his sales were at 100% markup but not closing any of them.

I'd rather be the salesman who only made 50% markup but closed all the deals .

The concept applies across the board - including policy

 

[JohnK]

What you're forgetting is that not everyone agrees:

- that something needs to be done

- that something needs to be done at any cost

- that something needs to be done by us (minuscule emitters)

- that something needs to be done now

Great summation. I would hazard a guess that 74.7% of the people feel this way..

 

[RAM]

Seriously? I think you've had too much UV. China has ample coal reserves for power generation. IEA says they imported coal that would amount to 0.6% of their production. Not numbers that make being cut off seem too scary a prospect.

Medhead, thank you for quoting a number at long last and where it is supposed to have come from.

It is a shame that the number you have quoted does not exist in reality.

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb, colspan: 4, align: center"]Coal in China (Mt)*[SUP][8][/SUP][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"]Production[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"]Net import[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"]Net available[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2005[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,226[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-47[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,179[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2008[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,761[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]nd[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,761[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2009[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,971[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]114[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,085[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2010[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,162[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]157[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,319
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2011[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,576[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]177[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,753[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4, align: left"]by IEA, exclude China Hong Kong[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Some simple maths, 177/3576 = 5.0% 2011 Chinese coal imports as % of production - you quoted 0.6% but no year for which that figure represents, so lets try 2010.

157 / 3,162 = 5.0%, no, not 0.6% again in 2010.
Let's try 2009, 114 / 2,971 = 3.8%. - no not 0.6% again either - the emperor's new clothes once more.

Unfortunately your quoted number (disproving - NOT) bears no resemblance to reality.

China's coal imports rose just 0.9% in the first half from a year earlier, to 160 million metric tons. WSJ - July 14, 2014 8:28 a.m.

The 160 mt is for a 6 month period not 12 months, so annual rate of imports is now running at around 320 million tonnes, Chinese domestic production in low 4,000s say 4,300. So 320/4300 = 7.4%

Medhead time to come clean.

China's coal consumption in 2010 was 3.2 billion metric tonnes per annum. The National Development and Reform Commission, which determines the energy policy of China, aims to keep China's coal consumption below 3.8 billion metric tonnes per annum. (That limit was reached/breached within 14 months of being set).
[h=1]Chinese demand for Indonesian coal increases despite pollution fears[/h]

Miner optimistic about prospects on the mainland as demand for brown coal increases
Monday, 07 July, 2014, 5:26am

Chinese demand for Indonesian coal increases despite pollution fears | South China Morning Post

"It is cheaper to import seaborne coal into south China than from north China via railways."
Most of the coal powers the national grid. The mainland's electricity output growth slowed to 4.7 per cent in 2012, 7.6 per cent last year and 5.7 per cent in this year's first five months, from 12 to 13 per cent in 2010 and 2011. This in turn saw lower coal demand as some 75 per cent of the nation's power is generated by coal.

So China cannot transport enough coal within the country and has to build whatever else it can to make up the shortfall in power generation - that is the true story not that China is a white-knight wanting to stop Global Warming. China is scrambling to build the most power stations at the least cost. Currently for China (& the rest of the world) that is coal-fired. China has hit capacity constraints on supplying enough coal to the burgeoning coal-fired power stations and is being forced up the cost-chain for next supply choice. It hits capacity constraints there and goes up the chain again.

The hip-pocket-nerve and self-preservation work just as well in China (somewhat better in many respects as the rule of law can be bought!).

 

[SeatBackForward]

Great summation. I would hazard a guess that 74.7% of the people feel this way..

No wonder its a political football

 

[medhead]

Medhead, thank you for quoting a number at long last and where it is supposed to have come from.

It is a shame that the number you have quoted does not exist in reality.

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb, colspan: 4, align: center"]Coal in China (Mt)*[SUP][8][/SUP][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"]Production[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"]Net import[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #cfb"]Net available[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2005[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,226[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-47[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,179[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2008[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,761[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]nd[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,761[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2009[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2,971[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]114[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,085[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2010[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,162[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]157[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,319
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]2011[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,576[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]177[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,753[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4, align: left"]by IEA, exclude China Hong Kong[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Some simple maths, 177/3576 = 5.0% 2011 Chinese coal imports as % of production - you quoted 0.6% but no year for which that figure represents, so lets try 2010.

157 / 3,162 = 5.0%, no, not 0.6% again in 2010.
Let's try 2009, 114 / 2,971 = 3.8%. - no not 0.6% again either - the emperor's new clothes once more.

Unfortunately your quoted number (disproving - NOT) bears no resemblance to reality.

Glad you've learned to used google. You do release that the import figure includes metallurgical coal don't you? Coking coal is not used for power production. We are talking about power production aren't we. Or do you want to redefine this as well?

In any case even if we include coking coal china is unlikely to be bothered by the potential to have 5% of imports cut off. Not that it would be 5% given the diversification of import sources. Even then cutting off imports would have a major effect of steel production in china which would hurt those countries relying on cheap manufacturing in china.

I see you've repeated your claim that china are doing nothing to reduce emissions but are just building whatever power plants they can.

Otherwise, you claim about transport capacity is interesting. So china can transport 3500MT but can't transport 177MT.

 

[dfcatch]

No wonder its a political football

The political football is way more easily explained.

Simple case of "in principle" everyone cares about the environment and wants to "do something".

When the reality of those "costs" appear - people start to no longer rank it as their most important issue.

Economic distressing times tends to refocus peoples' priorities.

The situation is exacerbated due to the over the top claims by your Flannerys and Gores of the world.

Arguably - they are more responsible than anyone for the nutcase denialists getting any significant traction.

Those whining about the Carbon Tax repeal in this country really are a mixed bag:

- those who are obsessed about the "most correct" policy of implementing carbon abatement (such as 777 above).

- those who are so wedded to their previous support for the policy that they can't stand the thought of either being wrong, or simply that the electorate has rejected their position.

- those who are religiously/ideologically opposed to coal, mining, progress, humans etc

- those who are in denial that the ALP lost the election

- those that don't care about policy but will oppose whatever Abbott supports.



So when you consider those axiomatic groupings - it's no wonder that any sort of ETS or similar stands no chance of getting up anytime soon if at all.

 

[RAM]

Glad you've learned to used google. You do release that the import figure includes metallurgical coal don't you? Coking coal is not used for power production. We are talking about power production aren't we. Or do you want to redefine this as well?

In any case even if we include coking coal china is unlikely to be bothered by the potential to have 5% of imports cut off. Not that it would be 5% given the diversification of import sources. Even then cutting off imports would have a major effect of steel production in china which would hurt those countries relying on cheap manufacturing in china.

I see you've repeated your claim that china are doing nothing to reduce emissions but are just building whatever power plants they can.

Otherwise, you claim about transport capacity is interesting. So china can transport 3500MT but can't transport 177MT.

One useful attribute with using google is you need to understand what it shows you. You are quite right -it is important to know what you are saying - 0.6% clearly was not knowing what you were saying.

The table I included is showing coal imported for power generation not all coal imports (including metallurgical coal or coking coal) and from the International Energy Agency. . Brown coal (article provided for you to read) is not coking coal. Also within the Chinese statistics, coking coal from Mongolia is included in their imports figure for coking coal.

"The National Development and Reform Commission, which determines the energy policy of China," the important words in the information I provided for you et al are "which determines the energy policy in China".

Medhead, it is you who is seeking to redefine any and all posts that disagree with your flawed analysis. I and others are not "redefining" energy etc - that is solely your domain.

Yet again you say "I see you've repeated your claim that china are doing nothing to reduce emissions".

And once more I suggest you provide the direct quote where I state that - unlike Politicians making baseless claims - the standard on this site is higher - please respect that. There is no parliamentary privilege here.

You have some knowledge on working the system for getting flights & status, perhaps stick with the area you can mount a valid discussion of.

 

[medhead]

One useful attribute with using google is you need to understand what it shows you. You are quite right -it is important to know what you are saying - 0.6% clearly was not knowing what you were saying.

The table I included is showing coal imported for power generation not all coal imports (including metallurgical coal or coking coal) and from the International Energy Agency. . Brown coal (article provided for you to read) is not coking coal. Also within the Chinese statistics, coking coal from Mongolia is included in their imports figure for coking coal.

"The National Development and Reform Commission, which determines the energy policy of China," the important words in the information I provided for you et al are "which determines the energy policy in China".

Medhead, it is you who is seeking to redefine any and all posts that disagree with your flawed analysis. I and others are not "redefining" energy etc - that is solely your domain.

Yet again you say "I see you've repeated your claim that china are doing nothing to reduce emissions".

And once more I suggest you provide the direct quote where I state that - unlike Politicians making baseless claims - the standard on this site is higher - please respect that. There is no parliamentary privilege here.

You have some knowledge on working the system for getting flights & status, perhaps stick with the area you can mount a valid discussion of.

I've bolded it for you. The import figure includes coking coal. Precisely my point. You falsely claim that table is only coal for energy production. Unfortunately, the IEA document doesn't make that claim.

Now if you bothered to actually follow the conversation. It is you who have stuck your nose in midway to nitpick on the calculation of a number, which you've got wrong anyway, seemingly to distract and divert. The claim was made that china is scared of another government refusing to sell them coal. I simply replied that the import figures make that highly unlikely. You disagree. Well done. Your constant personal attacks do not change my view that china produce more than enough coal to not be scared to lose the imported amount, regardless of it being 5% or 0.6%. That is what I've stated. If you wish to address that point please do so. If you want to redefine that discussion into a mathematical calculation contest, I'm not interested.

Otherwise, let me remind you of your previous post. If you can't remember you most immediate previous post, it says something.

- that is the true story not that China is a white-knight wanting to stop Global Warming.

 

[JohnK]

Medhead, it is you who is seeking to redefine any and all posts that disagree with your flawed analysis. I and others are not "redefining" energy etc - that is solely your domain.

LOL! I give you credit for trying.

 

[medhead]

LOL! I give you credit for trying.

You give credit for trying to distract the discussion with irrelevance to my point and for personal attacks.

The fact is I have not changed anything, you can get that simply by following the discussion. By comparison we have a moving feast of constant attempts to redefine what has been said, let's start with my comment about the cost of nuclear in Australia being wrongly confused with nuclear power in china. Then massive quotes out of context. Now a comment about the relative proportions of import and local production somehow being an analysis of carbon emissions.

 

[medhead]

And reviewing the thread, plus of course BREE quarterly reporting. I stand by my previous 100%, regardless of nitpicking about numbers, China is hardly going to be scared of those a hypothetical green-hippy government cutting supply.

They are also multi-skilling in case those stupid western powers actually get some green-hippy government that's cuts off their coal supply.

China has ample coal reserves for power generation. [snip] Not numbers that make being cut off seem too scary a prospect.

 

[RAM]

Glad you've learned to used google. You do release that the import figure includes metallurgical coal don't you? Coking coal is not used for power production. We are talking about power production aren't we. Or do you want to redefine this as well?

In any case even if we include coking coal china is unlikely to be bothered by the potential to have 5% of imports cut off. Not that it would be 5% given the diversification of import sources. Even then cutting off imports would have a major effect of steel production in china which would hurt those countries relying on cheap manufacturing in china.

I see you've repeated your claim that china are doing nothing to reduce emissions but are just building whatever power plants they can.

Otherwise, you claim about transport capacity is interesting. So china can transport 3500MT but can't transport 177MT.

Where exactly do I make that statement? I see you making that statement repeatedly, perhaps you are getting confused?

BTW - the definition of 'capacity constraints' = [COLOR=#0]The capacity of something such as a factory, industry, or region is the quantity of things that it can produce or deliver with the equipment or resources that are available.

Sometimes thought of "[/COLOR]As the straw that broke the camel's back[COLOR=#0]".

I hope this clears up the confusion![/COLOR]

 

[RAM]

You give credit for trying to distract the discussion with irrelevance to my point and for personal attacks.

The fact is I have not changed anything, you can get that simply by following the discussion. By comparison we have a moving feast of constant attempts to redefine what has been said, let's start with my comment about the cost of nuclear in Australia being wrongly confused with nuclear power in china. Then massive quotes out of context. Now a comment about the relative proportions of import and local production somehow being an analysis of carbon emissions.

Please show the exact quote from what I and others have added to the thread that backs up your erroneous claim (shown above in red).

Generally in a debate on a topic, if one participant continually misquotes others or provides baseless figures it suggests wider issues.

All people in this thread have asked is for the evidence to be provided with the claims, really adopting the Putin approach, "If I say it often enough they won't notice our Spetsnatz troops in the Crimea" has not worked for him and is not working for you.

Virtually every other participant has gladly provided the links etc. I suppose it is the exception that proves that rule.