Carbon tax
Jul 17th 2011, 8:27 am
#301
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,243
Re: Carbon tax
Our planned design objective for the No. 4 system was to achieve 44.2% efficiency, the highest level generating efficiency of any coal-fired power plant. By applying the various performance enhancing technologies described in this paper, Hitachi was trying to reach a thermal efficiency of 49.83% in its turbine plant commissions, the highest level ever achieved for this kind of power plant.
Better edit Wikipedia, it says they come in sizes more than twice that output
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbineThe peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
.)
.But has about 0.33% of earth's population.
There is huge value in being a technological pioneer of the age. I thoroughly encourage it
.
Jul 17th 2011, 8:31 am
#302
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 269
Re: Carbon tax
That article appeared in the morning post and was sent to me by a friend in England!
Thanks for the praise but it's not my work. As an ex-mod, I think it is safe enough.
The government needs more money. Fair enough; I'd pay a bit more tax. BUT it read the signals very badly and thought that mainstream reaction would be positive to a carbon (dioxide) tax. Why can't they just be honest about it. We need more revenue.
Then.........we are to have "carbon cops" to police the system. Even more spending.
Thanks for the praise but it's not my work. As an ex-mod, I think it is safe enough.
The government needs more money. Fair enough; I'd pay a bit more tax. BUT it read the signals very badly and thought that mainstream reaction would be positive to a carbon (dioxide) tax. Why can't they just be honest about it. We need more revenue.
Then.........we are to have "carbon cops" to police the system. Even more spending.
It is simply a matter of proportional response and value for money. Tony Abbot actually had a decent idea on this - plant trees to act as a sink. Swathes of pine forests across Queensland, great for the environment, reduce CO2, create lots of jobs in a new timber industry - win/win.
Jul 17th 2011, 8:39 am
#303
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 269
Re: Carbon tax
Taken from Hitachi Review Vol. 52 (2003),
Yes, let us point and laugh…just like we laughed at Richard Trevithick with his Engine powered by steam. Do you remember that old guy who wrote the nutty book on “The Origin of Species”? Just as well that theory died in its infancy without further research to weight the argument for it. We laughed at the first car owners…like that was ever going to catch on! Splitting atoms, how will the idiots get a small enough chisel? Alan Turing and his silly machine, what would anyone want with a device that uses logic and mathematics to solve problems? Mobile phones…etc. etc.
There is huge value in being a technological pioneer of the age. I thoroughly encourage it.
Yes, let us point and laugh…just like we laughed at Richard Trevithick with his Engine powered by steam. Do you remember that old guy who wrote the nutty book on “The Origin of Species”? Just as well that theory died in its infancy without further research to weight the argument for it. We laughed at the first car owners…like that was ever going to catch on! Splitting atoms, how will the idiots get a small enough chisel? Alan Turing and his silly machine, what would anyone want with a device that uses logic and mathematics to solve problems? Mobile phones…etc. etc.
There is huge value in being a technological pioneer of the age. I thoroughly encourage it
.Last edited by billingham; Jul 17th 2011 at 8:42 am.
Jul 17th 2011, 8:59 am
#304
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 241
Re: Carbon tax
Yeah,Remember Peter Brock and his Polariser that would give you 98% power and lower your fuel consumption?
Recall the "Fuel Cell" balls dropped in your fuel tank?
Anyone say'Y2K' bug?
Pet Rocks etc-when do you want me to stop?
Recall the "Fuel Cell" balls dropped in your fuel tank?
Anyone say'Y2K' bug?
Pet Rocks etc-when do you want me to stop?
Jul 17th 2011, 9:07 am
#305
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,243
Re: Carbon tax
It was ahead of its time, that said buyers didn’t get a bad deal because it came at £499 and sells for a little more today. Can’t say that about many motorcycles or cars from that era .
Also it led Sinclair to the Zeta electric bike things which are still selling today and there is a Sinclair X-1 coming out at some point
.
.Also it led Sinclair to the Zeta electric bike things which are still selling today and there is a Sinclair X-1 coming out at some point
.
Jul 17th 2011, 9:11 am
#306
221b Baker Street
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Miles from anywhere, Victoria, Australia.
Posts: 14,125
Re: Carbon tax
I will curtail my cap doffing - in your situation, it would have been so tempting to keep quiet!
It is simply a matter of proportional response and value for money. Tony Abbot actually had a decent idea on this - plant trees to act as a sink. Swathes of pine forests across Queensland, great for the environment, reduce CO2, create lots of jobs in a new timber industry - win/win.
It is simply a matter of proportional response and value for money. Tony Abbot actually had a decent idea on this - plant trees to act as a sink. Swathes of pine forests across Queensland, great for the environment, reduce CO2, create lots of jobs in a new timber industry - win/win.
Actually, it has recently been established that trees don't actually help at all/ Yes they breathe CO2 but like us, they also use oxygen. Strange but true.
Jul 17th 2011, 9:17 am
#307
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 691
Re: Carbon tax
Lights blue touch paper and stands back: 
Letter to the Editor:
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to ..038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from ..034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by ..004%.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = ....0000008%.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = ..00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor,
I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
Letter to the Editor:
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to ..038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from ..034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by ..004%.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = ....0000008%.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = ..00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor,
I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
Thankyou
Jul 17th 2011, 9:31 am
#308
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 269
Re: Carbon tax
I will repeat - The Sinclair C5 was an unmitigated disaster - slow / dangerous / badly designed - take your pick. The fact that it is worth more now is because they are rare, not because they were good - hardly any were sold (12,000) and even fewer survived the scrap heap. I was simply using that as an example that all theories and inventions can either be proved correct or wrong in the fullness of time.
WRT trees, the research I have seen states that they do use O2, but still produce 100 times more than they use. And they do soak up the carbon - which is what they would be primarily for.
WRT trees, the research I have seen states that they do use O2, but still produce 100 times more than they use. And they do soak up the carbon - which is what they would be primarily for.
Last edited by billingham; Jul 17th 2011 at 9:34 am.
Jul 17th 2011, 9:49 am
#309
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,243
Re: Carbon tax
Which sounds great until you realise a 25 year old pine tree uses 6.82kg of carbon dioxide per year (Link).
Someone above said they aim for a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide? Australia produces 399,219*10^3 t of carbondioxide/yr (Link).
So @ 20% reduction thats 79843.8*10^3 t/yr or 79843.8*10^6 kg/yr.
So you are going to need about 11.7*10^9 trees (11.7 billion trees).
Apparently you can get 400 trees/acre which means you'll need just 2.9*10^7 acres or 118,243 km^2.
So pretty much half of the state of Victoria in arable land used for trees to avoid carbon taxes.
Someone above said they aim for a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide? Australia produces 399,219*10^3 t of carbondioxide/yr (Link).
So @ 20% reduction thats 79843.8*10^3 t/yr or 79843.8*10^6 kg/yr.
So you are going to need about 11.7*10^9 trees (11.7 billion trees).
Apparently you can get 400 trees/acre which means you'll need just 2.9*10^7 acres or 118,243 km^2.
So pretty much half of the state of Victoria in arable land used for trees to avoid carbon taxes
.
Jul 17th 2011, 7:51 pm
#311
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Carbon tax
According to todays SMH Gillard is far from popular over this carbon tax.
Anyone take any bets on what happens next?
My guess is Gillard goes, and a half arse carbon "levy" is introduced with minimal rates. Over the years the governments will drive this up (just like they did with income tax) until it becomes another crushing tax on the poor old workers.
See the "I told you so" Thread on BE in 2025.
Anyone take any bets on what happens next?
My guess is Gillard goes, and a half arse carbon "levy" is introduced with minimal rates. Over the years the governments will drive this up (just like they did with income tax) until it becomes another crushing tax on the poor old workers.
See the "I told you so" Thread on BE in 2025.
Jul 18th 2011, 12:31 am
#312
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Carbon tax
What should happen is a referendum.
How about both?