So what's going on with the Carbon Tax?

[Paddler Ed]

Direct Action is argued by some economists as being the cheaper route to reducing emissions, however, it sort of incentiveises the polluter to increase pollution in the run up so they get as much as possible in subsidy.

Personally I prefer a tax on it, or a pollution trading scheme under a cap and trade agreement.

Herman Daly is a prolific writer from the ecocentric school of sustainable development where he argues that the optimum population growth is zero or negative, as an increase in population growth is not sustainable.

Carrying capacity is an important theory that underpins many ecological/economic balances, ranging from species habitat to humans. At the rate e are converting prime farming land into coal mines in the Hunter we have a much bigger problem.

 

[millsy]

HI Millsy

Thanks for your posts I always look forward to your reasoned point of view.

I enjoyed a book by Jared Diamond called 'Collapse' that dealt with how civilisations deal with change. Very interesting.

What is so frustrating to me is the fact that we rely on scientists / economists / professors for much of our well being yet on this matter, possibly one of the most critical we have faced, so many of us choose to ditch them and listen to hacks and shock jocks.

I think it comes down to the selfish and risk taking side of our evolution.

Over the past six elections I have voted liberal. Until the last one. God this current lot are the pits (on both sides). Though I have to give it to Abbott - what an amazing politician. I doubt there has been a better politician, particularly in opposition, for years. (and thats not a compliment LOL)

cheers

Thanks for your kind comments Stupid Flanders. We obviously have very similar views. (How about giving us something a bit better to address you by! lol).

I will have a look at that book 'Collapse', or at least do a bit of Googling on it.

I stumbled on Richard Duncan's 'Olduvai Theory' of the collapse of our modern electrical dependent civilization about twenty years ago. I had found his original version, all 27 pages of it. I started reading and was hooked. I couldn't stop reading till I had finished the whole 27 pages! Here is a similar version I found tonight;

The Social Contract - The Olduvai Theory

But of course there are a couple of big things missing in his original theory, and I don't recall him putting them right even in his later updates. I don't think he considered the impacts of renewable energies, and I don't think climate change is ever mentioned. Climate change being a big driver of the uptake of renewable energies. Nevertheless his basic ideas are quite understandable and also intriguing.

Another development that he had not been able to for-see was the growth of small scale electrical power, whether it be in the form of individual solar power units on domestic roofs, or small scale community power plants. Duncan's understanding of electrical power production was solely based on large oil fired power stations I think. I don't think he even considered coal fired power stations. Let alone nuclear! If so, it was a bit simplistic.

Here are a couple more links giving more recent reviews of how the Olduvai Theory is 'shaping up' as we draw closer to his 'Olduvai cliff' in the 2015 -2030 period. But there are heaps of articles on the net that analyze his theory.

The Oil Drum | Revisiting the Olduvai Theory

Olduvai theory – crackpot idea or dawning reality? | Brave New Climate

 

[millsy]

An Excellent book - (quote below from Wikipedia)

Which interestingly is a pretty good synopsis of the real elephant in the room - overpopulation , and we are well on our way towards that as a species.
we humans are the worst virus on earth.

Certainly agree on the overpopulation issue. Too many 'mice' in the little 'mouse cage', and still breeding!

If only we were able to talk to each other, nation to nation, in a civilized and rational manner, point to the 'elephant', and start to do something about it. We don't really need 10 billion people to do all the hard work that needs to be done to maintain our modern civilization. We have computers and we have robots and intelligent machines. We have sophisticated communication systems.

Surely we can set up some negative population growth in a big global conference. The sooner this happens the sooner our climate change problem will begin to be solved. And all the other resource depletion issues - environmental, mineral, agricultural, water, . . .

I find it amazing that in these regular Climate Change meetings they hold I don't think they ever talk about the actual cause of Climate Change. If you take a car to a mechanic the first thing he does is to find the reason the motor will not start. Is it the battery, the fuel, the ignition system, . . .? Then he fixes that defect.

Why can't they be that logical about Climate Change? OK, they have identified the greenhouse gases. Why can't they go the next step. What is making those greenhouse gases. Is it the dogs, the cats, or the humans? Aha! Too many humans. Time to stop breeding humans. Simple!

In 80 years they could have the World's population down to about 1 billion, or even less. No need to cull with guns or poison. Just let the oldies 'drop off the perch' and stop pushing out new ones. But that is obviously too complicated for us. I think kangaroos are much more advanced than humans in this respect. They control their reproduction rate in times of drought. Why can't humans?

 

[millsy]

An interesting section on Lateline tonight (or should I say last night! Spent the night trying to find one of my cats, even driving around the streets at 2.30am. He finally showed up from some hidy hole within the house at about 3.30am. Time I went back to bed I think!); Lateline - 08/07/2014: Australia is going backwards on climate change

Seems to back up the message that Four Corners was putting out last night.

 

[millsy]

I must admit, there might not be any need for a carbon emissions scheme anymore. With the huge price increases in electricity over the last three or five years (my provider has increased charges by another 20% as of July 1st) most people, and businesses are doing everything they can to reduce their electrical consumption! We would be stupid not to.

So rather than any carbon tax, or emissions trading scheme, forcing us to cut our consumption, we are doing it because the power companies are hungry for their government grants to update their 'power poles and power lines'. And a bit of the good old private enterprise mentality of course - profit, profit, profit.

And I reckon Abbott is servant to the big coal companies to some extent (no, am not accusing him of any sort of corruption lol). They, the coal companies, are struggling at the moment. They have invested all this money lately, in infrastructure, but demand is falling, for the reasons given above. I believe Australian coal is not being exported in the volumes that have occurred in the past. Probably because many other countries have huge coal resources too, and are selling it at cheaper prices.

But coal fired power stations around the world are 'on the nose' these days, with all this talk about climate change. Apparently many countries are changing over from coal to renewable energies. But that could be just a rumor. I won't believe it until I read it in The Advertiser. Nothing as yet.

 

[80lover96gxl]

Alot of the major countries around the world are now using necular power stations according to a rightup in the Advertiser yesterday, and with new technologies they can now use the waste uranium by products as fuel aswell. Soon they will have no waste whatsoever and with newer technology these power stations will become safer and safer to operate.

Australia of course missed the boat using necular power thanks to labor and the greens blocking any attempt to get necular power stations off the ground in Australia, even as far back as the mid 70's the ideas were put forward but to much concern was placed in storing the waste product, now the waste products are being used as fuel aswell it seems maybe they weren't a bad idea in the first place.

 

[millsy]

The nuclear option has always been a controversial issue. Other problems, besides the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, include -

- the finite uranium deposits on Earth. I think if you tallied up the known reserves, and then do an estimation of undiscovered deposits, the numbers come out to show that if the World moved to nuclear we would have the same problem as with fossil fuels. Uranium is a non-renewable resource.

I have seen estimations, some years ago I admit, that there is only about 80 years worth of Uranium available. Compare that to the number of years we can get out of renewable energy - the remaining life of the Sun - about 5 billion years. 80 years is nothing!

- Then there is the cost of building a nuclear power station. They are far more expensive than any other type. The great thing about solar power is that it can be done so cheaply these days. Solar voltaic panels are getting cheaper year by year. And they can be set up house by house, which by-passes the dilemma of whole power grids 'falling over' and mass blackouts. They are being used in villages in third world countries now. So people who never had access to electricity before, or only from filthy diesel generators, have moved into the modern era at little cost.

- And they also talk about the lead time of building a nuclear power station. Apparently it is at least ten years. Maybe more.

So for the sake of only 80 years life span, and with all the problems associated with it, I think Labor and the Greens were very wise. A complete waste of time and money! Fusion power, if they ever work it out, might be the answer. But at the moment it is still science fiction. And might remain so.

 

[millsy]

Australia of course missed the boat using necular power thanks to labor and the greens blocking any attempt to get necular power stations off the ground in Australia, even as far back as the mid 70's the ideas were put forward but to much concern was placed in storing the waste product, now the waste products are being used as fuel aswell it seems maybe they weren't a bad idea in the first place.

Well I would say Australia caught the 'renewable energy boat' thanks to Rudd and Gillard. But then Abbott came along, and putting his desire for power first and foremost, and following his personal skepticism on climate change, wasted three years of parliamentary debate trying to bring the boat back to port!

On top of that he 'hired' Murdoch to 'come on board'. Murdoch convinced nearly half of the population that Gillard was a 'lying witch' and that man-made climate change did not exist. So he got his prize, and now is in the middle of his promised U-turn, turning the boat back to port!

So that is at least 6 years wasted in the fight against climate change. Our boat could have been well over the horizon by now. Instead we are ridiculed by the rest of the world as backward losers. Lovely.

Abbott likes to say "Australia is open for business".

What a laugh. In Britain, according to the gentleman on Lateline last night, a huge renewable energy industry has developed over the last four or five years. That has provided jobs for many thousands of people. And with Abbott playing 'silly buggers' with climate change policy, our fledgling renewable energy economy is being scuttled! Think of all the jobs that we could have had if Abbott and the coalition had not turned climate change into dirty politics. Talk about shuffling the deck chairs while the ship is sinking.

Sorry Brian, couldn't help myself.

 

[millsy]

The nuclear option has always been a controversial issue. Other problems, besides the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, include -

I have seen estimations, some years ago I admit, that there is only about 80 years worth of Uranium available. Compare that to the number of years we can get out of renewable energy - the remaining life of the Sun - about 5 billion years. 80 years is nothing!

Just did a bit of Googling on the World's uranium reserves. This was an interesting answer to the question put to New Scientist magazine; "How long will the world's uranium supplies last?

Some of the comments below the answer to this questiuon were also very interesting, especially concerning the use of Thorium, rather than Uranium, as a fuel source.

But again, a non-renewable resource. And again, with waste products to manage.

The initial answer was 230 years. But then with various technological improvements that could be pushed out to about 350 years or so. Some further technological advancements suggested that 60,000 years may be possible. But comments below the answer dispute that.

How long will the world's uranium supplies last? - Scientific American

 

[millsy]

Good to see that Ricky Muir is thinking for himself, and not just following the PUP party line this morning. Well done fella!

And I thought Abbott promised, before the election, that the low income earners could keep their $10/week compensation for the carbon tax, even after the carbon tax was repealed. But I see on Sky News;

"The coalition argued at the election that the compensation was not needed if the carbon tax was no longer in place." - See more at: Lowest earners may keep carbon windfall

Wonder what the truth is on this one? Another broken promise?

 

[chris_stoffa]

Hey Millsy, bit one sided conversation going on here

Fusion - ITER - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fusion at the ITER project is pretty much a "When" , not an "If", and if you think 10 years for nuclear is a long lead time try 20-25 years. Its gunna take more than a footy season it would seem but it would also seem that the consortium is pretty committed to the ideas' success. EU 15-20 Billion is not just a wild punt by a couple of clowns, its a serious attempt.

As you seem to be finding out the estimates / predictions or warnings of many things that relate to enviroment,, energy and recourses are very often highly dependant on either the adgenda or the ideology of those that put them forward.

Cheers

 

[millsy]

Thanks for that Chris. Yes I remember them starting fusion experiments back in the eighties or early nineties. They were having lots of trouble controlling the high energy particles with their torus magnetic fields. The magnetic fields had to be very strong to make the high velocity particles turn very sahrp corners to avoid hitting the walls of the containment vessel. And the magnetic fields had to be very stable in their design specifications, as far as field strength and direction at all points in space.

I think they managed to get a fusion reaction going for only a short time. Can't remember how short. Maybe less than a second. Then the high speed particles would go 'out of control', hit the container walls, damage the walls because of their high energy, and cause the fusion to stop. I remember seeing a small news article about initial success, but not much after that. A very tricky thing to achieve it seems.

So we have been waiting 30 years for it to happen so far. Looks like it might be another 20 or more years! Good luck to them is all I can say.

The section of that Wikipedia on Criticisms, and answers to criticisms I found very good.

And yes, we all have an agenda I guess. And that colours both the way you perceive new information, and the way you present information in arguments to others. And so the importance of collecting ideas and data from a range of viewpoints.

I just get very frustrated when you realize that what is at stake, if we don't come up with something quite quickly, is the welfare of our little planet Earth, and all life on it! There are greater things than Earth I suppose. Our Solar System. Our Galaxy. But we have no control over things so big. We do have some influence, a very big influence if you believe the climate change theory, on what happens in the next FIVE or TEN years or so on Earth.

So we can argue what to do for 3 years, as we did, set up a plan and get it working, as Julia did, then we can change our minds and argue for another three years, which is happening now, . . .

Before you know it we will have passed the first FIVE year deadline, and be well on our way on missing the TEN year deadline. And why - because one man, Rupert Murdoch, has the power to convince people that the scientists are wrong about the science of the planet Earth. He convinced enough people that we should trust the ideas of a man called Abbott instead. Wonderful!!

But as you say, everyone uses their powers to minimize their taxes. So why shouldn't Murdoch use his powers to destroy the planet. He has the power. Nothing wrong with him using it you say (in a previous post). Well I disagree.

 

[80lover96gxl]

No need to be sorry Millsy, your replies always interest me.

Im not one to believe everything I read in a news paper but just found the topic of nuclear pwer interesting.
Apparently there are 434 nuclear power stations globally,
The US has 100, France 58, Japan 48, Russia 33, India 21, China 20, Canada 19, UK 16 and Sweden 10. Another 73 reactors are currently under construction with another 172 planned and another 309 propesed, thats alot of reactors but none of which proposed for Australia.

Now im not as well educated as your good self Millsy but if we had half a dozen over here I expect that would be creating alot of long term jobs that the country needs, not to mention the export potential sending uranium off shore to some of those 434 power stations.

Its also good to know some of the major players like the US and Russia are reprocessing a decent percentage of their nuclear arms to use as fuel for their reactors.

According to professor Barry Brook from Adelaide uni the new gen 4 reactors will produce virtually no waste products and will use previous spent waste as fuel and by mid century the nuclear waste problem will not exist.

I dunno Millsy these days there is a good potential for nuclear power stations to see us right for a few centuries to come,, but hey , I could be wrong.

 

[millsy]

No need to be sorry Millsy, your replies always interest me.

Im not one to believe everything I read in a news paper but just found the topic of nuclear pwer interesting.
Apparently there are 434 nuclear power stations globally,
The US has 100, France 58, Japan 48, Russia 33, India 21, China 20, Canada 19, UK 16 and Sweden 10. Another 73 reactors are currently under construction with another 172 planned and another 309 propesed, thats alot of reactors but none of which proposed for Australia.

Now im not as well educated as your good self Millsy but if we had half a dozen over here I expect that would be creating alot of long term jobs that the country needs, not to mention the export potential sending uranium off shore to some of those 434 power stations.

Its also good to know some of the major players like the US and Russia are reprocessing a decent percentage of their nuclear arms to use as fuel for their reactors.

According to professor Barry Brook from Adelaide uni the new gen 4 reactors will produce virtually no waste products and will use previous spent waste as fuel and by mid century the nuclear waste problem will not exist.

I dunno Millsy these days there is a good potential for nuclear power stations to see us right for a few centuries to come,, but hey , I could be wrong.

Wow, a lot of nuclear power stations out there!

I think the issue in Australia is our small, widely spread population. I will need to do some more Googling to check. But first thoughts are that we might be able to have one nuclear power station half way between Sydney and Melbourne, to be able to get the best economies of scale to make it viable. One power station giving power to the two cities. As they do with the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

Will have a look and see what I can find.

 

[80lover96gxl]

Yeah cool, looking forward to what you come up with.

 

[millsy]

Just had a very quick look before I head off to the pool.

Found this link; Australia's Uranium | Uranium Mining in Australia

Found this in the section Nuclear Power Prospects in Australia;

"The report said that the first nuclear plants could be running in 15 years, and looking beyond that, 25 reactors at coastal sites might be supplying one-third of Australia's (doubled) electricity demand by 2050. Certainly "the challenge to contain and reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be considerably eased by investment in nuclear plants." "Emission reductions from nuclear power could reach 8 to 18% of national emissions in 2050".

So looks like the output of one power plant is no where enough for Sydney and Melbourne! They say we could use 25 reactors!

Have to go. But will do some more Googling on nuclear power for sure.

 

[dno67]

Discussed this with a mate a few years back when it looked like our property was going to be affected by infrastructure to power the Vic desal pant, long story short mate say's it'll end up with a reactor beside it in time. Then he goes on to search to net and show me heaps of pics of OS desal pants with reactors beside them, so my bet is it'll be same here sooner or later as a reactor needs the water and the desal pant needs the power. No brainer really.

 

[80lover96gxl]

With advancements in technology these reactors should you would think become safer and safer to operate,, long gone are the days of chyenobal ( dunno if thats spelt right)disaster type reactors that were "knife edge" safe .

In a country thats population is growing at a steady rate and with high unemployment and looking to keep increasing as everything goes off shore these power stations could be a good way to secure local employment for many areas plus help local industry that I'm sure could use the business, the knock on effects could be tremendous for our economy.

 

[bugsy]

I know I just lost 8 cents in the litre Off my diesel rebate piss the carbon tax off everything that comes by truck is about to go up

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

 

[Tappet]

Don't worry bugsy you'll get your wish. Only problem is you'll find it it will make bugger all difference, particularly on you electricity bill.