ClimateGate: When will the MSM stop with the crap!

[Fat Bob]

Well, until we find alternatives don't we have to conserve what we've got?

There are already alternatives which nobody want to talk about. Nuclear.

(a) UK Government have just/are just about to commission a load of new nuclear reactors. So therefore, until those reactors are online, and other alternatives are in place, shouldn't we attempt to conserve what we've got?

(b) Nuclear power is also not ever lasting. But there might be enough for quite some time.

(c) When should we install nuclear power plants in unstable countries with poor methods of over-seeing them? The effects of Chernobyl are still on-going, should another place without sufficient controls in place do whatever Chernobyl did then what of the Earth then?

(d) If the governments do the right thing (and in some countries they do!), could the tax on carbon-based power be used for alternative energy supplies?

[Morrolan]

(d) If the governments do the right thing (and in some countries they do!), could the tax on carbon-based power be used for alternative energy supplies?

absolutely right, but see, that is where i distrust the current initiatives: we all know Australia has a lot of sunshine (too much according to the cancer institute), so you'd think that given the abundance of sun, Australia would be leading the way in solar energy. yet it isn't. it is in the last coach. Germany has 35% of their houses using solar and they don't really have a lot of sun, yet Australia has nowhere near that because the governments refuse to properly subsidise this energy source. if i want to instal a 1.5 kWh system on our roof it'll set me back $15,000 after subsidies, insanely expensive.

the Victorian government prefers to keep on burning brown coal, which only is the most polluting source of energy on the planet and our ETS will be based on us continuing to use brown coal, plus bilions of dolars of subsidies for businesses to counter the effect of ETS... all paid for by the consumers/taxpayers.

[edit: typo]

[Burbage]

Forcing people to pay extra tax in order to conserve energy resources is not the way to conserve energy resources. Governments are just profiteering from the man-made global warming scam. As for Australia, the political parties are far to busy bickering amonst each other to be capable of anything more than tax hikes.

[Fat Bob]

So still no one will answer me. Should we conserve our current resources now or not?

[Mr Oz]

So still no one will answer me. Should we conserve our current resources now or not?

That is not the purpose, it's about taxation. Governments don't give a stuff about conservation if they can tax it. In fact it has the opposite effect, there will be little or no effort to invest in alternate energy source or conservation because it effects their bottomline. It's a bit like the gambling problem in AU, we all know it has a huge social impact but the state governments are addicted to the revenue it generates so will do little to fix it.

[Morrolan]

So still no one will answer me. Should we conserve our current resources now or not?

That is not the purpose, it's about taxation. Governments don't give a stuff about conservation if they can tax it. In fact it has the opposite effect, there will be little or no effort to invest in alternate energy source or conservation because it effects their bottomline. It's a bit like the gambling problem in AU, we all know it has a huge social impact but the state governments are addicted to the revenue it generates so will do little to fix it.

agree. ETS is all about continuing to use your resources as you will, but buying some other country's unused pollutive potential in the process.

should we conserve resources? well, we're already using much more efficient methods of burning fossil fuels than in the past, so in effect are already conserving. other than that: what should you conserve it for? what's the point of conserving if the aim is to abandon the burning of fossil fuels? use it or lose it.

[Burbage]

Keep using it until it runs out then the argument goes away anyway.

[baloo]

the Victorian government prefers to keep on burning brown coal, which only is the most polluting source of energy on the planet and our ETS will be based on us continuing to use brown coal, plus bilions of dolars of subsidies for businesses to counter the effect of ETS... all paid for by the consumers/taxpayers.

That's what happens when marginal seats happen to sit dead smack in the middle of the coal fired electricity producing zone. Add in a few lobbyists and the odd big donation and we're stuck to burning coal.

[Fat Bob]

You're all bloody politicians! STILL not answered the question!

If we're being taxed too heavily for something, we'll reduce use. If it's an acceptable levy on something, we'll keep on paying it.

If such tax is too heavy, then we'll figure out ways not to use as much.

And morro, why should the government and taxpayer help you pay for something that will do you a lot of good? Have you worked out the economic costing? How soon would such a device pay for itself with lack of electricity purchased from the companies and possibly electricity powered back into the network? How much does it cost to build such a thing?

You're all sounding like whingers indeed. Either continue to pay and continue to live in such a country, or get in there and do something. You have choices of reducing you tax-paying potential at some heavy cost, you have the choice going to a country that doesn't charge such taxes, you have the choice of changing your lifestyle to reduce you tax costs. You have a choice of doing a combination.

Mum and dad installed a log fire in their new house. Their winter heating bills are very small indeed because they pick up fallen wood whilst on walks and have room to let it dry. Using it on the fire with all doors open (and with well insulated windows and doors to the outside) warms the whole house, with minimal need for gas-fired central heating to kick in. That is a simple way of making you expenses go down. And as you are picking up wood, and getting it for free, there's no tax on it.

[Morrolan]

You're all bloody politicians! STILL not answered the question!

see here:

what's the point of conserving if the aim is to abandon the burning of fossil fuels? use it or lose it.

And morro, why should the government and taxpayer help you pay for something that will do you a lot of good?

firslty, i'm a taxpayer so it is 'my money' to begin with and subsidies are one way in which a government allots public funding to promote areas of public interest. secondly, it won't do me a lot of good, but the environment. the government (all governments) claim to be eager to reduce the use of fossil fuels. solar cells at this point in time are still at he beginning of their technological development and thus expensive. increased use will attract more investment and faster development and will bring prices down, which will benefit society. subsidizing alternative energy sources is done all over the world and has resulted in some improvement of technologies. it is hypocritical of a government like the ones in Australia to spend a lot of money (my taxpayer's money) on for instance getting Tigetr Woods to play in Melbourne or have a stupid Grand Prix, but not on things that will bring a real long-term benefit.

Have you worked out the economic costing?

yes.

How soon would such a device pay for itself with lack of electricity purchased from the companies and possibly electricity powered back into the network?

at current prices? optimistally calculated around 40 years.

How much does it cost to build such a thing?

i just told you: $15,000 with subisides. it's around $19,000-$20,000 without. for a mere 1.5 kW. and they cap the energy they buy back to systems below 5kW plus pay you less than market rates, so there's no point installing much larger systems, although that would improve the economic viability .

[Fat Bob]

The aim of conserving what we currently have is to make it available for future generations. You have a future generation, you should look into safeguarding their future payments for electricity. I don't, so I can say "go fuck you all, I'm using as much as I can". But I'm not.

You are a tax payer. Therefore, you are right, every cent the government spends has to be on you. Sod all the other things tax pays for. As long as you get a benefit then it's OK. You're not interested in the GRand Prix? How much revenue is generated by the Grand Prix: through sales tax, casino tax, airport tax? How much money gets pumped into Melbourne because of the Grand Prix? Probably more than the government pays. So the goevernment gives money to make things work so the local community benefits. Ah, but yes, you don't benefit so it's not fair.

It's going to take 40 years to ge tthe costs back? Not very efficient. Surely you'd want costs back in 5-10 years. In which case, the govenrment is probably right in not funding such things. Sounds like you'll still be using electricity from the grid even with this on your roof......it's not the right thing to get to help reduce resources.

And no, you told me how much it would cost you to install. You've now told me how much it costs to make (or buy in Australia). Seems like it's not the right thing.

I would suggest you check out other options. Or continue paying the government tax. Whichever suits you.

[Morrolan]

The aim of conserving what we currently have is to make it available for future generations.

erh. no, we've already found that we are supposed to stop burning fossil fuels, so there's no point preserving it.

You are a tax payer. Therefore, you are right, every cent the government spends has to be on you. Sod all the other things tax pays for. As long as you get a benefit then it's OK. You're not interested in the GRand Prix? How much revenue is generated by the Grand Prix: through sales tax, casino tax, airport tax? How much money gets pumped into Melbourne because of the Grand Prix? Probably more than the government pays. So the goevernment gives money to make things work so the local community benefits. Ah, but yes, you don't benefit so it's not fair.

are you being purposely obtuse? as i already said before: it is not me that benefits, but the environment. that's what this is all supposed to be about, isn't it? i would like to install solar to help reduce the ecological burden of burning brown coal, however the cost is prohibitive, as this government does not want to provide good subsidies as they are doing in other countries, such as Germany. apparently, subsidizing alternative sources of energy makes good ecological sense to many governments.

the alleged economic benefit of the Grand Prix is contested.

It's going to take 40 years to ge tthe costs back? Not very efficient. Surely you'd want costs back in 5-10 years. In which case, the govenrment is probably right in not funding such things. Sounds like you'll still be using electricity from the grid even with this on your roof......it's not the right thing to get to help reduce resources.

not sure how you come to this conclusion: a 1.5 kW system already reduces use of grid electricity quite strongly, a larger system will reduce it even more to theoretically less than zero. every kW received from solar immediately reduces use of fossil fuel.

[Burbage]

Current situation:

Coal mine:

1. Employs people and earns vast tax revenue for the government through income and business tax, as well as resources tariff.
2. Transport industry to take coal to power station employs people and earns money for government through income tax and business tax.
3. Power station burns coal to produce electricity. Earns money for government through income tax, business tax and GST.
4. Waste management industry, to clean up after coal station. Earns money for government through incoem tax, businus tax and penalties on waste handling.

Solar power:

1. Sun shines. No tax.
2. I buy a solar power station for my house: No tax, government gives me money (based on M's expectations)
3. Solar power station makes electricity for my house. No tax.
4. Waste management: no waste management.

Summary

Coal fired power stations: lots of jobs and big bucks for the government.
Solar power: No jobs and no revenue for government.

That's what the government means by "cost".

[Fat Bob]

The aim of conserving what we currently have is to make it available for future generations.

erh. no, we've already found that we are supposed to stop burning fossil fuels, so there's no point preserving it.

Isn't this where you're being just as obtuse? Surely if we're supposed to stop burning fossil fuels the answer isn't to use all of them?

[Fat Bob]

It's going to take 40 years to ge tthe costs back? Not very efficient. Surely you'd want costs back in 5-10 years. In which case, the govenrment is probably right in not funding such things. Sounds like you'll still be using electricity from the grid even with this on your roof......it's not the right thing to get to help reduce resources.

not sure how you come to this conclusion: a 1.5 kW system already reduces use of grid electricity quite strongly, a larger system will reduce it even more to theoretically less than zero. every kW received from solar immediately reduces use of fossil fuel.

Hmmm....now, I'm not sure of the annual cost of your electricity. But the calculation in my head are:

Cost of 1.5kWh unit = $15,000
Current pay back = 40 years
Payback per year (at current electricity prices) = $375/year

When I look for "average electricity bill australia" people are quoting figures above $200/month, i.e. $2,400 per year. Which means that the 1.5kWh will only look after about 15% of your electricity.

My questions is now: have you done your maths correct? Have I done mine correct? Have I left anything out? e.g. annual servicing?

If it is as above, then really, solar power seems rather inefficient, and probably has a huge "carbon footprint" just to make. In which case, using solar power through solar cells is probably not worth it (from an environmental point of view, if one believes in such points of view). Which is why the government is not willing to fund it more.

[Pinklepurr]

I have just had a long conversation about this very thing this evening with a friend who was considering solar power. We came to the same conclusion. It just isn't economically viable the way it is set up and you will still be using a considerable amount of non solar power in the end anyway. It is so confusing in the literature that is available that we thought that it was no doubt designed to baffle Joe Average on purpose.

[Fat Bob]

There's some that believe the whole climate change discussion is designed to baffle Joe Average on purpose.

[Morrolan]

erh. no, we've already found that we are supposed to stop burning fossil fuels, so there's no point preserving it.

Isn't this where you're being just as obtuse? Surely if we're supposed to stop burning fossil fuels the answer isn't to use all of them?

well, your first question was:

Well, until we find alternatives don't we have to conserve what we've got?

you then amended it to:

The aim of conserving what we currently have is to make it available for future generations.

i'm saying we shouldn't conserve, firstly, because we already have alternatives, secondly since the future generations aren't supposed to be burning fossil fuels anymore anyway, so we can use what we have until it's finished and gradually switch to the (expensive) alternatives as the respective fossil fuels run out.

[Morrolan]

not sure how you come to this conclusion: a 1.5 kW system already reduces use of grid electricity quite strongly, a larger system will reduce it even more to theoretically less than zero. every kW received from solar immediately reduces use of fossil fuel.

Hmmm....now, I'm not sure of the annual cost of your electricity. But the calculation in my head are:

Cost of 1.5kWh unit = $15,000
Current pay back = 40 years
Payback per year (at current electricity prices) = $375/year

When I look for "average electricity bill australia" people are quoting figures above $200/month, i.e. $2,400 per year. Which means that the 1.5kWh will only look after about 15% of your electricity.

My questions is now: have you done your maths correct? Have I done mine correct? Have I left anything out? e.g. annual servicing?

If it is as above, then really, solar power seems rather inefficient, and probably has a huge "carbon footprint" just to make. In which case, using solar power through solar cells is probably not worth it (from an environmental point of view, if one believes in such points of view). Which is why the government is not willing to fund it more.

your numbers are off: as the government pays you less for the energy you put back in the system, so you can't calculate from the money so to speak, and you don't include interest.

the numbers given by the Vic government are as follows:

Family with two kids
Panel size 1.5 kW
Average annual electricity consumption 8,500 kWh
Average solar generation 2,500 kWh
Excess electricity exported to the grid 400 kWh
Premium feed-in savings
Total electricity bill (before solar panel) $1,700 per year
Amount saved on buying electricity by having solar panels $357 per year
Credit through feed-in tariff for electricity sent to the grid $240 per year
Total $ savings $597 per year
Final electricity bill $1103 per year

usage numbers are actually too low in the example, but they'll do. so, taking an initial investment of $15,000 the payback (excluding interest) is 25 years, with interest it'll be a lot higher depending on the interest rate used, but will be in the 30-35 years bracket. i think the technical lifespan of a panel is less than 30 years, so you'll have to take into account reducing efficiency (less power) over time and possible replacement costs, all of which bring the payback further back.

with regard to energy used to make the panels i could find an estimated carbon payback period of 18 months (which is low, but really should be paid back before your economic payback starts), so that is not a reason not to support it from a government point of view.

the point is, obviously, that, as with all technology, it becomes cheaper the more you build, and the more money flows into the industry, the more R&D will be done to develop more efficient panels. governments in many countries contribute to this development by subsidising now so we'll have better technology later.

[Burbage]

Using up fossil fuels as fast as possible might be the best way to go in fact. It would force the issue.

[Mr Oz]

Using it fossil fuels as fast as possible might be the bets way to go in fact. It would force the issue.

Yeah actually I have to agree with burb. Economics is the best deterrent. If resources become scarce then they become as expensive as the alternate (solar etc) and then people will switch, then profits in alternate energy will kick in and the research money will flow and the price of the alternate energy will drop but the fossil fuel price has to rise either by becoming scarce or (OMG) Taxation... So perhaps the aim of the ETS is tax fossil fuels to a price just below the switching price and milk that cow for all its worth!

[Morrolan]

So perhaps the aim of the ETS is tax fossil fuels to a price just below the switching price and milk that cow for all its worth!

yep, there is no 'aim' behind the ETS other than form over substance. it is an empty gesture destined to become nothing more than a revenue raiser, since still no one talks about how to prepare for a changing climate. the emperor truly has no clothes in this issue: the prices for everything will go up, businesses will get subsidized out of economic pain and things will go on as usual (but at a higher price level for consumers), so the only result will be a lower level of prosperity for everyone.

[Rosbif71]

I say keep burning fossil fuels otherwise I won't have a job.
Shipping coal to India and China are a major part of my company's work.

[Morrolan]

seems the media are slowly paying attention:

The Copenhagen charade

The conference I attended used science to understand the past, present environments and pollution. This was essentially unreported because journalists are scientific illiterates and this is not sensational news.

The other conference, the UN's political conference, is about the redistribution of your money through sticky fingers.

[Mr Oz]

Oh it gets better....
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 13072.html

THE EUROPEAN Union has probably lost at least €5 billion to VAT fraud related to carbon trading and there is a risk that the criminals will now shift their attention to Europe’s electricity and gas markets, according to Europol, the EU’s law-enforcement operation.

The news will further embarrass EU governments negotiating in Copenhagen and trying to persuade other countries to sign up to carbon trading as a way of reducing emissions.

It was recently reported that the Danish government had been forced, on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, to rush through an emergency law making it impossible for criminal gangs to reclaim huge amounts of VAT on fraudulent trades they were making on Europe’s various carbon exchanges.

Amazing we did read that in the MSM! So the criminals (aside from the governments) have moved in on the ETS already. So there is no checks and balances? no fraud protection? OMG!