Greg Combet put out a media release today (emphasis added).
The New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) today released its final determination on regulated retail electricity prices for 2012–13.
IPART has determined that the carbon price will add less than $3.30 per week, or around 8.9 per cent, to the average household electricity bill.
This is below the national average impact predicted by the Treasury of a 10 per cent price increase averaging $3.30 per household.
IPART’s decision on the impact of the carbon price is also consistent with similar findings by electricity price regulators around the country.
The Gillard Government’s household assistance package has already begun delivering assistance to households.
On average households will receive $10.10 a week in assistance 2012-13 to help with the modest price impacts of the carbon price.
Tony Abbott has consistently attempted to scare the New South Wales public by claiming the carbon price would lead to “massive” household electricity price increases of 20, 25 or 30 per cent.
The facts are now coming in, demonstrating the dishonest claims of Mr. Abbott.
He should apologise to the people of NSW for this deceitful scare campaign.
So let’s remind ourselves of what the Treasury actually predicted (emphasis added).
The carbon price leads to an average increase in household electricity prices of 10 per cent over the first five years of the scheme. This is a modest increase in the context of the 40 per cent real increase in electricity prices over the past 5 years.
Just to be clear – that 10 per cent over five years is repeated in the main document (emphasis added).
Household retail electricity prices are projected to increase by 10 per cent on average, compared to the global action scenario, over five years after carbon pricing starts.
So the carbon “price” has used up 8.9% of the 10% over five years.
Twitter aficionado Craig Emerson is also rolling with 3.30 per week.
Christ, they the freaking liars. We now have da carbon pwice at 4 times the world average with everything rolled in and these lying pricks are suggesting it only costs 3.30 per week. Like… nothing
They’re now just conducting basic fraud on the public.
Unless the cost of carbon emissions goes up in future years then there’s no reason that it should have more of an impact in the future is there? They’re only introducing it once.
And given the current world wide price, if anything the carbon price is is likely to drop to the floor price once it comes off the fixed price period so might even contribute to a drop in electricity prices.
What is interesting from the breakdown is that green generation programs like solar feed in tariffs only contributed 0.3% of the price increase, significantly dwarfed by infrastructure upgrade costs. And generation costs actually dropped. If people want electricity costs to not increase so much in the future it looks like they should be concentrating on how to reduce the summer peak load so we don’t have to spend billions on infrastructure upgrades that are only used in the summer and then only for a few days a year.
Carbon emissions increase in price over the first three years. That’s built into the mechanism.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again while the CO2 tax cost is lied about by this fucking, rotten lying government, especially by Combet, a man who was parachuted into a safe labour seat 20 klicks from the coast and who still brought a house by the coast despite lying continually about sea level, and will be vastly greater than this lying government says, it is not the real problem.
The real problem will be power shortages and blackouts; anyone care to bet there will not be power blackouts on the East coast before the next election.
And when you’re sitting in the fucking dark put a cost on that.
Nope. There’s the 20% renew ball target and the 5% overall target that has to be met by 2020. That’s fucking 8 years away.
These fucking loons are going to drag the price up where a fucking hours of lighting a room will cost an ounce of gold.
We already know that the price has to go up every year to reach those targets.
We’ll be a dusty South American village with chickens flying around when the bus arrives by the time they’ve get through vandalizing.
Never mind all that, Cohenite. Just lie back and think of how our carbon dioxide tax will have a huge impact on the climate globally.
Cohenite
I bet there won’t be. In fact I reckon there will be surpluses over the long run as these pricks are basically shutting down the country.
Seriously with those fucked up targets and no nuke allowed because it frightens those disgusting Greenslime like Tubbie Milne , you will be exchanging an hour of power for an ounce of gold.
In fact the power company will send around the person to pick up the gold as they won’t trust anyone to pay it.
He’s a particularly angry Frog. He told you his father died when he was young. He manages to stick that into every monologue. He needs counseling.
The libs need to create a commission and check out all this fuckers lies to the public. Go through them one by one and ask him to explain himself.
Sinclair – is it legislated how much the fixed price increases over the first 3 years? I haven’t been able to find it.
JC – thats true about the renewable energy target, but thats quite separate from the carbon tax. And South Australia has already reached that target (don’t know about other states).
Abbott has also committed to the 5% reduction target but I kind of doubt either the ALP or the Libs will really get there.
Basic model explained here.
Infrastructure needs to be updated to deal with excess solar panels use. Which in turn drives up pricing as return is guaranteed based on capital, not usage. The less we use the more the price goes up. Complete failure for public.
OK, lets be generous and believe the minister for unicorn flatus.
20.6% rise here in Newcastle of which 8.9% is due to the unicorn flatulence tax.
CPI is 1.6%.
So that means about 10.1% is due to the ALP ripping off the power distributors for inflated dividends throughout the bad years of the NSW ALP Government. A practice which Bob Carr, now a Federal ALP minister, started. OK, some maybe due to the 20% unicorns-on-bicycles power generation legislation brought in by the ALP. Same diff.
What is worse? A unicorn flatus tax costing us 19% net of CPI or a unicorn flatus tax costing us 8.9% and and Greens-infected ALP corruption tax of 10.1%?
Our voting pencils here in Charlton are ready, Mr Combet.
If I understand you correctly JC you are saying instead of there being power shortages there will be surpluses because there will such a reduced demand due to the economic wasteland created by the CO2 tax.
Unfortunately part of that wasteland is this little fucker: Macquarie Generation. MacGen supplies about 40% of NSW’s power through its ownership of Liddell and Bayswater power stations, 2 world class coal-fired plants.
MacGen makes a profit of about $180 mill PA.
It’s CO2 tax liability PA can be calculated here.
As you can see MacGen had, in 2011, CO2 emissions totalling 20524177 tonnes. Multiply that by $23 per tonne for a PA tax liability of:
$472 million.
Tell me what I’m missing.
Cohenite:
They will pass on the costs and the final result will be, we’ll be picking up dead oldsters in heat waves because they can’t afford the power.
Seriously, I think there will be surpluses because lots of industry will close and people will not be using power to avoid the cost. The final result will be lots of dead and greatly reduced living standards.
If they’re not lying about the 5%/20 targets, the pwice of da carbon will have to hit 79 bucks a ton in order to introduce gas turbine here. They will absolutely fuck our economy to the point that it’s unrecognizable.
A just and proper Liberal government would start a royal commission and have them all in the dock answering charges of fraud and lying. Garnaut, Combet and Tyranis Flannery ought to be the first ones up. No mercy with these trogs.
I’m not sure how you can separate them out as they’re part and parcel of reaching the targets. The renewballs forms part of the suite to reach the 5%. If it looks like it won’t get there, they will move the pwice higher and try to attract more renewballs. It’s a minimum remember. So the target has to be reached by either reduced consumption or more renewballs.
That’s also assuming a stand still rate of growth. But yes they’ve reached the target because it’s a flat shithole with lots of wind around the coast thereby market it a special situation.
I think the Libs policy has an embedded escape clauses up the warzoo. Abbott is basically telling porkies.
So it looks like the carbon price will go from $23/tonne to $25.40/tonne so it’ll increase prices a further smaller amount over the next couple of years but its not unlikely that it will drop significantly after that (maybe even to the floor price which is around $15 I think).
Irving J – do you have a reference for that claim? My understanding was that the big infrastructure upgrade costs are due to increasing peak demand capacity in summer. Nothing to do with solar PV generation. In areas where too much solar PV generation is a problem (voltages rises too much I think) then inverters just shut themselves off when it gets too high. Not good news for those on FiTs wanting to make money, but there’s no need to upgrade infrastructure.
You can’t say that Chris, because we don’t know how we’ll travel to the 5% target. However I wouldn’t be betting it’s going to be easy which means the pwice will have to go much higher. Theoretically it could go to 70 bucks to begin attracting gas turbine if the 5% target doesn’t look like getting matched. In the suite of options it is still cheaper than the two whores (solar and wind) as they would need 300 bucks or so.
So, the government is misrepresenting the Treasury and the opposition in order to make itself look good.
Who’da thunk it??!
What this moron appears not to realise is that he sounds like he’s welcoming a nine per cent increase in power bills. With nothing to show for it in terms of ‘saving the planet’, fer gawd’s sake.
I can see people kicking in their television screens when Combet appears to tell them how well of they are.
I’m with you Bruce. I can’t wait for this election to roll around.
[Homer. Mate, how are you? You do know you're banned here? Sinc]
Chris – how much it’ll fall we can’t know. That’ll depend on the cap that is set. The price rise until then will still contribute to future price increases.
Chris – Mr Sheik called. You’re wanted back at HQ.
We can also expect to see lots of red herring being flung about on 1st July. I have noticed the ALP framing the issue as Abbott claiming everything will fall apart as soon as the tax is applied via the image of the sky falling in. When the impact in the first couple of weeks have not really been felt this will be hailed as proof that Abbott is a scaremonger and the tax is all but harmless.
John Doe, aka Homer, you’re desperately trying to get something to rise substantially too, but stagflation is isn’t something you can just wish up.
D’oh! Sinc got him first.
Treasury modelling? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Was it Gruen again?
Seeya soon under another name Homer. Now go whine about the Cat at Young Harry’s blog. He appreciates your “input” there.
Serious question, why is John Doe banned?
[Because he can't commit to remain on topic, he wrecks threads, and we end up arguing over whether skanky ho was a Taiwanese warlord's mistress and the economics of Nazi Germany. The economics of Nazi Germany is actually quite interesting but 'John Doe' keeps quoting people to be saying the exact opposite of what they actually said. Sinc]
By way of comparison, back in Apr 2007 I was paying 10c/14c per kWh (first 7,000kWh pa/remainder). The current rate is 20/29. So it’s doubled in 5 years without a carbon price. There was an interesting article in the SMH yesterday on the factors that go into the price rises. I’m not sure if it online. Infrastructure to cope with peak load appears to be a big factor
With all the respect I can muster for Economists (which is substantial I must add), the duelling modelling and posturing matters not a fat rat’s clacker.
Every electicity bill and gas bill (and plenty other bills besides) between here and the next election will simply reinforce the message with the two-thirds of voters who already oppose it …. this tax is futile, wasteful and a rip-off.
High income earners will correctly know they are being ripped off.
The bogans will tip their compo into the pokies and flat-screens which will be long forgotten when the bills start rolling in.
Let’s be clear. All that extra cash we’ll be paying from July 1 onwards will stop climate change by reducing the world’s level of CO2 by the equivalent of one cow expelling intestinal gases.
“an average increase in household electricity prices of 10 per cent over the first five years”
Make that “10% per year over five years”
There – now it works…
Technically Gab, it isn’t designed to reduce CO2 concentration. Just slow the increase. But you knew that didn’t you.
SteveC – not sure that’s right. What happened to reducing it by 5% on 2000 levels?
SteveC, by how much do you think the carbon tax will ‘slow the increase’?
It is ideologically designed. It’s not technically designed at all.
It will also be long gone before the next election is due. Bogans have short memory spans.
I think the infrastructure upgrade excuse for the increase in electricity rates is a furphy. It is true that a succession of ALP
criminal gangsgovernments neglected infrastructure, poles and wires, the most expensive infrastructure, renovation and replacement of the plants has been conducted by the power suppliers like MacGen.The releative cost of the non-plant infrastructure is small.
Either, as I have shown, with the MacGen example of how the CO2 tax will impact on the energy providers, there has been some anticipatory increases, with, admittedly, the worst increases yet to come or some price gouging has occurred.
all voters will remember is 10% increase, the carbon tax was involved and abbott was against that tax. combet gave abbott a free plug on that point of difference.
I know I’m quoting a newspaper, which can be dodgy, but the article says the network companies have been given approval to spend 45 billion over the next 5 years on infrastructure upgrades.
I found a link to the story
I found a link to the story.
http://m.smh.com.au/business/high-power-rates-its-a-poles-and-wires-story-20120611-20603.html
(The link button never seems to work for me anymore)
Jim Rose – I’m pretty sure all that most voters will remember is that electricity prices rose 20%, and completely forget how much was actually due to the carbon tax. Similarly for any other price rises for at least the next year.
They may be rather disappointed about the lack of price decreases as the Libs try to dismantle the system after being elected. But I’d guess that’s a problem Abbott will be happy to have!
The word ‘carbon’ is involved, and suddenly, the modelling is dodgy.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked.
Well, as an economic dunce I can’t add a whole lot to the conversation, but as a consumer I’m mightily pissed that my electricity supply charge is going up by 10% as of 1 July, and according to TRU Energy, “[T]he increase is largely related to the introduction of the carbon price by the Australian Government on 1 July 2012, as part of their Clean Energy Legislation.”
There follow a few links, including one for a page that has “tools and tips to help you better manage your energy costs.”
And with one broken promise, my gas and electricity are going to skyrocket in the winter.
Thanks a lot, Julia.
I thought companies that said that price increases were due to the carbon tax would be fined?
Sinc , that’s correct. To reduce emissions to 5% below 2000 (or 108% of 1990 emissions, or someting like that). But to stablise CO2 would require effectively stopping CO2 emissions altogether. The objective was to stabilise at some figure well above where we are today.
If you are accelerating and want to stop, the first thing you need to do is to reduce the acceleration to zero, then start slowing down.
You wouldn’t recognise ‘moral hazard’ if it bit you on the arse. I would never vote for a party that required it’s permission before a private company could build essential infrastructure.
I suppose those same companies won’t get permission if they’re undergoing an industrial dispute either.
Only 7 seats in QLD, wait till next year.
I wonder if even Oakshott will have the gall vote for himself.
nilk, sounds like TRU are scapegoating a bit. You should review the docs at ipart.nsw.gov.au. The increase is about half due to carbon price and other “green initiaves”, the rest infrastructure.
That is true. It is also seemingly irrational – but it isn’t – decisions are made at the margin. Even an across the board 5% price increase can be quite tough.
Gillard doesn’t get that spending, inflation and regulation take up over half of GDP net of amortisation and deadweight losses.
I would like to know what percentage of the “infrastructure upgrades” are actually the costs of running transmission lines to remote wind farms.
We know that these are basically overspec as they have to handle the peak capacity of the wind farm that average ~ 30%/nameplate, so would be wastefull compared to transmission line connected to a conventional plant.
Like most people, I have already reduced my electricity usage to the bare minimum. Making it more expensive won’t make me use less. Every extra carbon tax dollar that I spend paying for electricity is a dollar that I won’t be able to spend on something else, food for instance. Their tax won’t reduce temperatures but it will fuck up our standard of living.
Ripper I’m guessing that would be included in the Green component. The consultants report is pretty thick, it’s probably in there somewhere.
by how much do you think the carbon tax will ‘slow the increase’?
Whatever the guess, it will be impossible to verify.
First thing after the election, we need:
1) The AFP and/or the Army ordered into every Labor Party politician’s and ALP branch office to stand guard over the shredding machines (and preferably to smash them).
2) The cancellation of every currently-active Labor and Green politician’s passport.
3) A Royal Commission with unlimited terms of reference to examine the conduct of the Rudd and Gillard governments, and with the power to enforce prison sentences for gross failure, untruth and corruption, and failure to co-operate with the Commission (i.e. if you refuse to answer, you are hiding something).
Nothing less will do.
Resist the Grunreich.
Funny if there was only one vote for him.
I don’t think that’s correct d-b. Given not all countries have carbon pricing, then a change in carbon output in Australia would show up when compared to other countries. Isotopes allow identification of the different sources of CO2 so we can measure what we produce vs what the earth produces naturally.
Perturbed
I’d actually agree with that. Lessons have to be learnt and if caught lying severe penalties.
In fact the libs would be crazy to let them get away with this dishonesty.
When a household does not have a surplus, a 10% increase in power bills is too much. Mine for example; and I can’t turn the heat or cooling off due to illness; and the household can’t upgrade to double incomes due to the same illness.
It’s only 3.30 a week. I don’t have 3.30 to spare, especially not as an infinitely recurring expense. But it isn’t just a direct 3.30, is it? It’s the 3.30 out of every household every week, it’s the much more than 3.30 out of every business every week, making a hole in the economy.
It’s the fact that in a chain of supply the same increase in expense will happen at every step, instead of just at one, as per the GST.
I load wheat onto a truck. Every manufacturer of every Australian sourced input to the wheat crop needs an extra 3.30 for their household and +10% on previous to cover power bill increases, as does every wholesaler, retailer, and transport operator in the entire supply chain for every input. Every tonne of wheat is dependent on anywhere from four to twelve inputs, each with their own supply chain; 1-3 fertiliser inputs, 2-7 herbicide inputs, 1-4 pesticide and insecticide inputs, PLUS 1-3 wheat-tonne sized slices of full-time labour units, and similar parts of the purchase and wear-and-tear of somewhere around a dozen pieces of machinery. Each of those supply chains becomes more expensive, and most of them have multiple supply chains of their own.
The same goes for the truck. When the truckie drives away all his suppliers from fuel retail to parts to the fellow who sells him a pie for lunch all need their 3.30 for their household (and every employee’s) plus the additional 10% on their business power bill.
Wreckage,
That is what I was trying to say.
People who have never run a strict budget are incredibly stupid on this issue, so I thought I’d spell it out a bit, dot.
I suppose you’re right Wreckage. Thanks for pointing it out to us.
Even a very small, low power-consuming small business can easily be looking at $2000 per quarter in power bills. So that’s an increase of “slightly less than” $200 per quarter, for a small farm with no employees.
So, the farmer now doesn’t get to eat out once a month. Or he can’t replace his broken-down old car. Or he can’t make repayments on an upgraded but still cheap second-hand tractor. Perhaps he has a casual employee at harvest or sowing who has to be let go.
$600 that year might have fitted new covers on a machine, an open-from-the-ground system on a 3-story high silo that currently has to be climbed at least twice anytime it is loaded or unloaded, it might have bought him a smartphone. For a mixed farmer it could have bought some breeding ewes or a cheap ram, for a struggling farmer it might have been 3 weeks groceries.
Move into retail, services or light manufacturing, and $2000 a quarter for power starts to look cheap. You can’t turn off the grill, the lights or the fridge without losing customers. Many businesses are marginal; they pay the owner and one to four employees for as long as a price shock or declining terms of trade doesn’t wipe them out.
Just to clarify, I’m illustrating why dot’s point on margins is important, not arguing with him.
Wreckage there was a number that startled me once. It was in Reason magazine and they were c=ting a study. Every $10 million increase in taxes resulted in x number of deaths, I can’t recall what the number was exactly but it was one.
Examples they gave
The single mother can’t replace her car tires and ends up skidding off the road during a snow storm etc. There are consequences the margin these appalling imbeciles are unable or deliberately choose not to see.
oops it wasn’t one.
“The carbon price leads to an average increase in household electricity prices of 10 per cent over the first five years of the scheme. This is a modest increase in the context of the 40 per cent real increase in electricity prices over the past 5 years.”
So the fact that governments have already jacked up electricity prices by 40% in five years with renewables mandates, solar subsidies, feed-in tariffs, power-guzzling desal plants, no new hydro dams, etc. is supposed to make us feel good about the carbon tax? Look, they say, we’ve screwed you for 40% already. Why worry about another 10% (of the 140%, of course).
Unremarked fact: none of this has or will have any noticeable impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The schemes were all duds, and the carbon tax compensation will make it a dud too. All we are doing is buying a lot of inefficient infrastructure and inventing new revenue churns where the deadweight losses are the only quantifiable outcome.
Well the only way to reduce ‘carbon pollution’ is to reduce the economic activity that creates it. That is what the tax is designed to do, and it will succeed to some extent. Surely the ‘modeling’ shows this, otherwise there is no point to the tax as a means to reduce emissions.
It will reduce supply and increase input costs thus helping to create inflation. Let Combet and the lying government reap what they sow with this one.
By the way the Cat Canberra Collective is thinking of having a final carbon tax free friday drinks on the 29th in Canberra. Perhaps others should do the same.
of course, if you have an old, almost burnt out, highly inefficient electric hot water heater, then you are ROOTED. Try telling your landlord you want to upgrade to something more efficient because of The Carbon Signal you keep getting in your quarterly bill.
But I guess wanker leftie greens don’t bathe.
….and if you and your wife are Doing Alright in your Job and finally earning The Money that goes along with all that Hard Work over the years, then you get No Compensation because somehow the ALP has deemed you a Greedy leech and you have to Pay The Carbon Signal.
Spot on Dan – I was a bit gobsmacked at the ads – you know the increase to your government payments thingy. Fact is I haven’t had a a regular payment from the guvvernmint since the 80′s & the $140.00 per month TEAS payment that I was entitled to as a living away from home student. & Yep I’m one of those greedy leeches – going to work everyday paying my taxes!
I suppose I was expecting too much when I thought I would get an answer to my question from SteveC.
Dan and Di,
We taxpayers really need to stop this idiocy of taking money here to give it away there.
The message I want to hear from Tony Abbott is that he is going to stop taking money off me to give to his mates and political supporters. I know I will never get that from the ALP, but I want to hear it and then see it from Tony Abbott and the Liberals.
I want an explicit promise to cut the ratio of Govt to GDP down to at least 20% and I want all the savings returned as tax cuts. I don’t want Tony and the Liberals to sustain a high taxing and high spending government that leaves the surplus tax take as a pile of cash for Labor to blow in their first year of office next time around.
Cut spending deep, then cut taxes and then start paying off debt with the extra cash that roles in.
A simple policy Abbott could announce is that he will outsource all economic modeling. After all has treasury got any of it’s economic modeling right over the last four years?
I’m interested to see the Law of Unintended Consequences here because it is coming into winter and all those heaters will be switched on soon, so perhaps the initial spike in prices will be much much greater than Treasury Modelling.
John Comnenus; They could start by not taxing my super until I draw down on that pool. Its madness
Agree with you on that one Dan.
cohenite
The real problem will be increasing numbers of elderly pensioners falling ill and dying from extreme cold in winter and heat stroke in summer, as they won’t be able to afford to run their heaters in winter or their aircon in the heat. Another unintended consequence for this kakistocratic regime.
John
Don’t hold your breath waiting to hear this from Abbott. This is the Coalition’s way of doing things as much as Labor. The only real change is that you might be less offended about who they spend your money on.
Spot on; these fucking monstrosities, both wind and solar, taking over the coutryside, simply overwhelm elecitity grids; they do so because power, such as it is, generated by wind and solar is never ‘even’; from minute to minute; these fuckers can be producing nothing or producing at peak capacity.
The surges overwhelm the grid which needs to be reinforced at great expense.
The point about this, whenever you hear an apologist for wind and solar, like Combet, say the electricity price increases are largely due to infrastructure not the CO2 tax, note that the infrastructure is being renovated due to the need to accommodate wind and solar which is being paid for by proceeds from the CO2 tax.
In otherwords it’s a lie.
Cohenite, also remember that the infrastructure is needing upgrades because the Labor governments at state level have been tearing the guts out of the reserves the system had built up for maintenance.
So realistically we’ve had a carbintax for about five years now.
I agree Johnno
I rest my case; just look at this lunancy from that alleged scientific body, the CSIRO.
Consider this from the CSIRO report:
Solar fucking forecasting; that is, the sun sets, the sun fucking rises.
“Energy management”; use less, freeze in the dark.
“We need a highly flexible electricity grid.” Which will cost a motza simply because wind and solar do not work.
Well Steve C, my power supplier has sent the self same explanation /warning letter as Nilk’s
I have checked and I’m still to be paying lower than either Origin or AGL but nevertheless an increase cent or part thereof, in every billing level of gas and electricity.(Energy Australia)
I’m nearly as much in fear and anger about the anticipated blackouts as I am of the cost increases!
cohenite – at the moment the huge infrastructure costs (on the east coast) are not due to solar/wind development, but improving the grid so it can handle the peak demand for about 40 hours a year (this is according to the regulator). Its not about generation on the east coast, but increasing capacity to suburbs/homes because more people are installing a/c systems and the current substations/wires can’t handle the increased load.
If you want to keep electricity prices down work out either how to get people to use their a/c systems less or have cheap local generation sources that don’t stress the network.
In case any one wonders, apparently the carbon tax and the rest of the green ALP policies are to make sure the ALP does not lose its parliamentary seats to the Greens.
So all this pain is to ensure that the ALP types remain in parliament and get their taxpayer funded pensions, and stuff the rest of us.
And I got that information from pretty close to the horses mouth too.
What it does suggest is that the next election there might be an increase in the Green members of parliament at the expense of the ALP.
We are living in more than interesting times, methinks.
Yes, and using individual feather patterns we “can” track every seagull on earth. Which is to say, yes there is a measurable characteristic, but holy crap no we can’t track it globally. That’s madness.
The cheap constant local generation will be the first to be carbon-emission-reduction’ed into oblivion, since it is small gas and diesel plants, which are polluters. Small, constant local generation is explicitly being shut down in favour of big, centralised and intermittent power sources.
The major point about most GHG schemes is that they are so irrationally designed that they must fail even on their own terms.
If 8.9% of the alloted “10% over 5 year target” for the direct carbon tax impact is already consumed what is the average increase for the remaining years? (i.e. does year on year compounding further reduce the increase for remaining years?)
If we can get a split into Green Left ALP and Greens with the right of the ALP spinning off, that would be pretty nice. The right of the ALP has spun off before, it’s probably about time it happened again.
AFAIK there’s not a lot of existing really local generation (eg suburb/home) in urban areas – probably for a good reason as compared to larger generation they’d be much less efficient and more expensive to run. But I think it is concerning that increasing wind power is disproportionally affecting gas powered generation compared to coal fired (though use of both are reducing as a proportion of total generation).
To significantly avoid new electricity network investment *and* continue to have increased home usage (which it looks like we’ll be heading towards without significant home energy efficiency improvements for peak times) generation will have to be very local.
Apart from solar which doesn’t match peak summer demand that well the only other thing I know about it bluegen which is a home gas powered electricity generator. Its rather interesting in that it uses the waste heat to provide hot water and can also generate 2kW (and can ramp up and down easily) which would make a significant dent in peak demand. Whether or not it ends up being affordable when produced in volume is a different matter though. And gas prices are going up significantly as we are able to export more gas instead of only being able to sell to Australians.
Say sayonara…
Actually there are plans afoot to remove Sydney from the grid; they are by professor Peter Newman who makes sense until he starts supposing wind and solar can achieve the plan.
TonyOZ looks at what is known as co and trigeneration power sources, which have been around for some time.
Local power generation could work on a coal, gas or even small nuke of the variety which have been successfully powering the US navy for the last 50 years, basis. It only falls in a heap when the greenies shanghai it and try to apply wind and solar to the scheme.
I will answer your assertion about wind and solar not being the cause of the infrastructure cost blow-out later.
Actually there are plans a foot to remove Sydney from the grid.
They are by professor Peter Newman who makes sense until he asserts wind and solar could be the main energy sources.
The method by which urban areas such as Sydney or even suburbs can be self-sufficient in power is called co and trigeneration.
The method has been around for a long time. TonyOz looks at some of the issues. The process can be readily powered by coal, gas or even nuke of the variety which has successfully powered the US navy for the last 50 years.
It only falls down when the greenies come along and advocate wind and solar to power it.
I will get back to you about your assertion that wind and solar are not responsible for the surge in infrastructure cost expenditure.
Actually there are plans a foot to remove Sydney from the grid.
They are by professor Peter Newman who makes sense until he asserts wind and solar could be the main energy sources.
The method by which urban areas such as Sydney or even suburbs can be self-sufficient in power is called co and trigeneration.
The method has been around for a long time. TonyOz looks at some of the issues:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/?s=CogenTrigen
The process can be readily powered by coal, gas or even nuke of the variety which has successfully powered the US navy for the last 50 years.
It only falls down when the greenies come along and advocate wind and solar to power it.
I will get back to you about your assertion that wind and solar are not responsible for the surge in infrastructure cost expenditure.
Actually there are plans a foot to remove Sydney from the grid.
They are by professor Peter Newman who makes sense until he asserts wind and solar could be the main energy sources.
The method by which urban areas such as Sydney or even suburbs can be self-sufficient in power is called co and trigeneration.
The method has been around for a long time. TonyOz looks at some of the issues:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/?s=CogenTrigen
The process can be readily powered by coal, gas or even nuke of the variety which has successfully powered the US navy for the last 50 years.
It only falls down when the greenies come along and advocate wind and solar to power it.
I will get back to you about your assertion that wind and solar are not responsible for the surge in infrastructure cost expenditure.
Sorry Dandy, I missed the question:
I expect the carbon tax and other initiatives to reach the government’s Kyoto target of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent compared with 2000 levels by 2020 by 80 per cent compared with 2000 levels by 2050.
I also expect other nations (primarily USA, China and India) will adapt carbon pricing in the next 5-10 years enabling a global agreement of stabilising levels of GHGs in the atmosphere at 450 ppm (parts per million) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) or lower.
I am quite proud to belong to a nation that will take a leadership role in reducing global carbon emissions.
Are you proud of the loss of GDP growth?
Future GDP growth would have paid for later risk management with a surplus.
You want to lock society into what amounts to an out of the money put option to make yourself get a self esteem boost.
You’d out other people out of work to make yourself feel better. Don’t expect to win any popularity contests around here.
Chris says:
Actually there are plans a foot to remove Sydney from the grid.
They are by professor Peter Newman who makes sense until he asserts wind and solar could be the main energy sources.
The method by which urban areas such as Sydney or even suburbs can be self-sufficient in power is called co and trigeneration.
The method has been around for a long time. TonyOz looks at some of the issues:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/?s=CogenTrigen
The process can be readily powered by coal, gas or even nuke of the variety which has successfully powered the US navy for the last 50 years.
It only falls down when the greenies come along and advocate wind and solar to power it.
I will get back to you about your assertion that wind and solar are not responsible for the surge in infrastructure cost expenditure.
stevec, I have tried to communicate civilly with you since you’ve appeared here, but this is ‘a tipping point’.
I’ve said this to enviromorons I meet in person, that if they believe in garbage like the statement above, I consider them to be basically insane.
Enough.
Meaningless, pious, self indulgent crap.
Wow. If that is how you feel, we won’t try to change your mind.
Just don’t expect other people at a blog founded on rational economics to believe in or indulge your irrational need to fill an emotional hole.
It’s not a moral issue even if there was a problem, you dumb prick.
If there was a problem it’s a question of how best to create efficiencies while delivering higher living standards.
This is the problem with fucking morons like you, steveC. You get in the way of important discussions and because you can’t think in terms of cost benefit/ trade-offs and maximizing returns on capital etc, you begin to make claims towards what is and isn’t moral. This is why you and your type absolutely poison these discussions. You have no business being part of them because you don’t understand the issues in the first place. That’s why you end up in Deadbeart Cres. with the rest of the swine belonging to GetUp. You have no business discussing this shit.
Even if the science is right and by the way I think it likely is right, the economics applied is likely to fuck things more.
Seriously, get out of this discussion and get your GetUp members out of it to, as you have no fucking business being in it. You simply don’t know or understand enough.
Well I am not proud, and do not wish to belong to such a stupid idea. I would be immensely proud if someone was to call BS on the whole sordid affair. Why can’t I have it my way?
And the term ‘leadership’ is laughable.
“Leadership” as in “being at the head of the Lemming conga-line”?
It’s a technological problem if it indeed is a problem, SteveC. It’s not a moral one, you idiot.
Sinclair – few people on this blog (publicly available to kids as well) are unnecessarily using the F*-word. Do you want to do anything about it? At the end of the use of these words may reflect the character and temperament of those who use it, but it is not a good look on a blog run by a teacher.
The most sickening and stupid statement straight out of the Greens’ emotional party line list of phrases to make people think we’re doing something for the good of the planet.
It’s childish, immature socialist pap.
Proof, if any were needed, that SteveC has completely no idea what he’s talking about.
In fairness it is hard to hold ones tongue when dealing with the impenetrable denseness of the leftist mind.
Or what?
You’ll poop your panties?
Fuck off Malcolm. Go join The Temperance Movement if you don’t like it.
Quite so.
Proof how Jack? I should have separated the posts as they are two distinct points.
1. we can (and already do) measure how much CO2 Australia produces.
2. We can (and already do) measure (globally) the ratio of CO2 from fossil fuel burning vs other sources via carbon isotopes.
I did not mean to imply that we can identify the CO2 from burning fossil fuels in Australia.
I want you to shut the hell up.
How much will the temperature be lowered by the ETS?
Do you realise if we used an ETS to eliminate emisssions, it would basically wipe out global GDP?
It is a shockingly badly designed programme.
Wreckage, in your scenario you forgot to include the carbon tax that will apply to fuel to ship the wheat once the two year expedition ends. I assume By then the carbon tax is higher too.
And think of he impact on dairy farmers, who use tonnes of electricity.
Bloody hell. I meant the two year exemption on fuel for the carbon tax.
Greens destroy the environment and kill people (probably their actual goal). Think mandated mercury filled light fittings, pink batts, stealing of productive agricultural land for ethanol production, deaths from malaria because DDT was banned…ad infinitum.
Ranting of a delusion green bint:
How will that be independently verfied? This is how China is in fact acting to manage carbon emissions:
Like those carbon credits that are so fundemental to the flimsy pyramid schemes the greenies create. Fraud and obstruction will continue to occur in emerging countries .
Well, I expect that by then the lid will have come right off the CAGW/CO2 scam.
Are you going to follow Steve Keen’s example and bet your house on this?
If electricity prices rise another 25% and fuel doesn’t, it will be cheaper to run my house off a diesel generator, than off the grid!
We use to joke about this 5 years ago, now it looks like it might become a legitimate investment, I might even be able to get a government grant to help me setup buy using generators that can also use ethanol.
All I know Mr Combet( idiot death’s head!)is that house insurance, contents insurance, car insurance and probably registration will also rise,and the notices are flooding in!.
Ad that to the compounding GST at all levels of our necessities of way of life,let alone the home’s use of power and gas, and go choke on it.
Your $250 handout dob’t buy this gal’s vote!
Yes, could be and always remember that if you’re buying a micro-turbine you can’t go past Capstone, a stock which I own. Best micro turbines in the market. Tell your friends and their friends.
http://www.microturbine.com/
From Sinclair’s links:
Pricing:
(1 July 2012 to 1 July 2015, the “fixed charge” years), carbon units will issued at a fixed charge of:
in 2012, $23/tonne
in 2013, $24.15/tonne
in 2014, $25.40/tonne.
Modelled impact on electricity prices $/week:
@23/tonne 2012/2013 3.30
@29/tonne 2015/2016 4.20
That’s around 10% in five years. But you may beg to differ?
See, the ETS is working already to reduce fossil fuel emissions and it hasn’t even started yet!
Sorry about the repeat posts guys.
Honestly steveC is GetUp a disguised sheltered workshop for the over 65 mentally incapacitated.
You moron, individualized turbines would increase emissions not reduce them. the difference is that the gas or the diesel is not carbonically taxed which leaves room for tax arbitrage.
Have they started doing brain transplants in Canberra as yours isn’t working, you idiot.
Ethanol in particular, and diesel also, produce far less CO2 per kWh than coal
For Steve
Do you realise if we used an ETS to eliminate (global) emisssions, it would basically wipe out global GDP?
How can you support such a wasteful policy?
Steve C, It is funny to watch a green holy roller in action.
Halleluyah brother.
Please remember to say your prayers to great green mother that when those seas rise 100m your bunker at the top of the Great Divide is well stocked.
So what?
Biofuels not only compete with food production they are one of the main factors leading to deforestation; yet greens advocate it.
Greens are stupid.
I was merely congratulating MundiMundi on his conversion to low a CO2 emissions lifestyle.
I’m sure we’ll not see any further exploitation of the poor in the third world like this when the ETS is in place as there is an international police force that is in place to prevent it…isn’t there?
Collateral damage, or as Sarah Hanson-Young said after the deaths after other Green endorsed madness:
What, is he dead; being dead offers the lowest CO2 emission lifestyle; and even then the greens are not satisfied.
Anybody else notice the trend where leftists who start routinely posting here, inevitably (usually within a fortnight) try at least once to intimidate sinc into banning people on the basis that they know who he is?
All for his benefit of course, as they wouldn’t want anything to happen to his reputation.
Let’s hope they take the teeth with mercury fillings out first, otherwise we may need to put the carbon cops on that unforgiveable carbon crime.
Malcolm is obviously on of those sanctimonious condescending teachers (vast majority) where as the Doomlord is more of a ” can and does ” one.
Freedom loving teachers are a rare find.
Delusion on a grand scale, and behaving like he’s entitled to gum up threads and waste people’s time and effort. This type is purely out to act as a spoiler.
So does my goldfish. So what? Only if you are comparing like with like. You are trying to compare individual generators running ethanol or diesel (but collectively inefficient and more greenhouse gas intensive) than a coal fired plant. The statement is so silly I am embarrassed for you.
And BTW ethanol production, particulary grain based,is a greenhouse conjob.
I was asked a specific question, so i answered it. The thread is about the cost effect of the Carbon tax, the question was about how the carbon tax will effect CO2 emissions (a point raised by Gab). If you are not interested in discussion, don’t ask questions.
By comparison, the posts just above by blogstrop jumpnmcar token twostix have nothing at all to do with the thread
You may recall that one of the stated aims of this blog is :
Why do we do this?
Because it is dangerous to have unchallenged consensus opinions.
Entropy, is that an opinion or do you have some facts to back it up?
SteveC, you appalling GetitUP lunatic, if people have individualized gas turbines emissions would be more than from mass produced energy from coal, you idiot.
But you don’t challenge anything here, you goose. There is nothing you’ve said that challenges anyone’s opinion.
go through what you’ve actually said here
You asked why homer was banned and then the stupidity flows from there. You later tried to morality play.
You have not once challenged people’s opinions on the economics of the tax on da carbon. Not once. So stop over promoting yourself you stupid galoot.. You’re at the back of the room here at the Cat unable to keep up.
No.
Steve dodges hard questions.
Do you realise if we used the Australian ETS on a gloabl scale to eliminate (global) emisssions, it would basically wipe out global GDP?
How can you support such a wasteful policy?
No dot, I don’t realise that at all. Your premise is based on the assumption there is no alternative to fossil fuels for energy, which is entirely false.
There are alternatives of course SteveC… at multiples the price we’re paying now, you ignorant GetUp fossil.
Spell them out and give us the price differential along with supply possibilities. Go On!
This should read:
Your premise is based on the assumption there is no
alternative to fossil fuels for energy, which is entirely false.
And “false” should be true.
Gees SteveC, Obama paid out money to a company to create the perfect lightglobe which, when brought to market cost $50 per globe.
By your logic we should raise the cost of all globes to $50, damn the consequences, because of your wonderful moral imperative…
Steve C at 5:37pm
Strangely enough we get this homily from Steve C at 12:42pm
‘Debating’ with SteveC has about as much chance of a successful outcome as Australia’s (or any other) carbon tax/ETS has of achieving a reduction in the rate of world temperature increase. Buckley’s or none.
No, it does not.
I am using the same cost assumptions of the Gillard Government.
Treat him with the utmost contempt like I do, Biota. It’s cleansing.
Can’t raise the ire JC. Anyway I am not speaking to her, but to Malcolm’s tender kids
Token,
Question:
Answer:
Seems like an answer to the question to me. You not agreeing with the answer is irrelevant.
…and Steve C I answered why:
A) don’t believe it is possible to achieve those # targets as there is no way to prevent the system being cheated,
B) I detailed how China is acting to ensure noone can check of they are cheating
C) I note how Carbon abatement schemes in Africa, backed by the World Bank, are being used as a device to steal land from poor subsistence farmers.
So while you may be proud that your unattainable targets, which will be constructed using treaties with countries that cheat the system will lead to wealth loss and suffering by the most vulnerable, while costing 10,000s of Australian jobs, for no actual change in emissions. I am not.
I rate your logic and morality on par with Sarah Hanson Young.
You are either a fool or a person who treats others as fools to exploit them Steve C in the name of a false idol.
Either way, your morals stink as bad as your logic.
You would inflict pain on 100,000′s to salve some empty emotional hole in your psyche.
You are a complete moron; China would not have a clue what its emissions are and has no intention of reducing its emissions; Bolt had an interesting post recently; this post shows that China’s fugitive emissions are about 30 times the 5% predicted reduction in Australia’s CO2 emissions by 2020.
That’s its fugitive emissions; those small emissions which are overlooked in the accounting, and they dwarf Australia’s CO2 tax’s planned effect.
You could not plan this sort of imbecility; it just comes natural to the greens and this government.
From your linked article:
Did I see a sillyfilly post?
Yes I did.
There goes the neighbourhood.
JC son – you sound like an angry young man. I hope you do not use these words to any kids – yours or others. You don’t need to be foul mouthed to make a point. Abusing Malcolm unprovoked and leaving your abusive words in the public domain makes you open to litigation.
On your comments – you have no idea about gas turbines.
Professor Davidson – I see you do not want to curb anyone’s comments. Do you condone unnecessary use of abusive words in this blog though? People visit it for intelligent discussion, not to see abusive outbursts.
[See here. Sinc]
Yes the article does say that, doesn’t it grasshopper?
It’s called the AGW disclaimer; you see it in papers which clearly establish that AGW is bullshit but the paper will invariably conclude with a deferential nod to the supremacy of AGW despite whatever contrary findings the paper made have described.
Alternatively you could call it the keeping my job while still preserving a little bit of scientific integrity clause.
When its used in the context of China, its the we’ll do whatever we want while similtaneously pulling the wool over the gullible Westerners with our committment to AGW diplomatic double-talk.
And aren’t they good at it, and aren’t we gullible.
Fuck you’re an imbecile SteveC.
China reducing it’s carbon intensity is the normal course for a nation raising its GDP .
Take a look at this chart. It shows just how inefficient China is with the amount of energy going into a unit of GDP. Incidentally, despite what you hear from your moronic, mentally ill friends at the local GetUp Friday morning activity group, we’re at the top of the world league in terms of carbon intensity, you fucking. So China reducing its intensity is nothing when you consider their absolute emissions are targeted to be 8 times US base line levels by 2050.
Seriously, you’re too fucking stupid to be on here.
I know what you thought when you showed up. You thought .. what with all the info I get at the local GetUp Canberra branch I be able to lick these righties and libertarians in a morning. Hasn’t quite worked like that has it, you idiot?
Fuck me JC, tone it down, you’ve upset Robert.
…and it is committed to make sure no external agency will be able to audit and confirm the results.
The Glow-ball Warming/ETS Bubble you guys are creating will make sub-prime look like a baby’s fart in a bath.
Exactly. Not to read a bunch of blow-in wankers getting on their high horse, or being proud of the big scam.
Fuck I’m sick of this whining. You don’t like what you read here, go away. No one has a gun to your head making you stay here. And who are you to determine if swear words (oooh! scary) are unnecessary in context or not? And this is a private blog, not publically-funded.
Geez I’m sick to death of these totalitarian fuckwits.
Go rampage at Green Left Weekly for the crap and lies they print.
Why is it today we get a flannery* of sooky trolls with their sensitivity dials set to eleven.
*Flannery – collective noun for a group of blog lawyering concern trolls seeking to derail a thread that insults their death cult
For a nice summary on how China treats international treaties when they conflict with their self interest, just watch this video about the South China Sea. The map at the end is telling.
Good luck getting them to honour treaties that reduce their ability to take the remaining 1 Billion people from poverty to a western standard of living.
Robert, child…
I’m not young, nor angry. However I’m intolerant of stupidity and I bet you’re going to disappoint on this score like Malcolm. Am I right?
No I don’t, perhaps because they aren’t as stupid as say Steve C,
You don’t , you’re quite right. But it comes out better for me in abusing rank stupidity. Rank stupidity after after all has got us into this mess with the lying slapper and her alliance partners.
But Malcolm left a very stupid comment. It was the sneer that I objected to in the same way I find your sneer objectionable, Robert, child. And frankly Mal is quite free to pursue legal channels for telling him to fuck off. I’m not sure it would get him far though, Bob. However if it’s Mordy’s court you just never know.
And I think you’re an idiot. If people converted to micro turbines which is what I’m talking about; that is, all individual households, emissions wouldn’t reduce much because there are huge efficiency savings with mass produced energy. I’m betting you thought I was talking about large industrial turbines, right Bob? If you did you weren’t paying attention and just another idiot blow-in.
I don’t think sinc has a huge problem with swearing, but go ahead and ask him. It’s not my site.
Is there anything more I can do to make your stay enjoyable, Bob? Wash your feet perhaps?
And Bob, child.. I almost forgot.
You can go fuck yourself too and stop wasting pixels.
Next up, another troll comes wanders by and says
“Stop bullying!”
Robert, Malcolm and SteveC turn up at the Cat and think they are engaging in an informative debate. They are more like the occasional JW or Mormon that turns up uninvited and tells you that you’re damned unless you believe what they say. Missionaries from the church of AGW.
Robert,
I find it helps if you picture yourself as the psychiatrist and JC as Fawlty in the psychiatrist episode.
SteveC
I see see you as the Manuel getting the frequent flick over the ear every time you screw up and say something really stoopid. Take a look, they’re red raw.
I think you’re right though Gab. They’ll try and finkelstein the right before they lose the federal elections.
Punishment will be listening to SteveC give a lecture promoting GetUp every day. Obviously done with total malice in an attempt to nudge us all to suicide. They have denialibility that way.
If you boil Combet down to basic pondslime it all comes down to making him accountable for what he says …
Comrade Milne says carbon tax not negotiable ..Combet says rubbish , liar or idiot ?
Comrade Combet says 10% tax rise ok …I say no tax or less tax ok , why try to justify tax that will do no good …liar and idiot ? What kind of fool goes on and on about a tax increase being ok , oh right Combet .
Comrade Combet member of Canberra gift shop hit squad ..liar , idiot and thug ….and that’s just a sample , who in their right mind would want this running their lives? , he’s been media shy for the last six months because all shifty rats sense when a ships starting to go down , he’s only raised his lying boof head because he thinks he has a chance at leading the ALP , I can just see it now PM Combet , deputy Milne and treasurer Thompson
Sorry for my bad grammar but I’m learning again ..
No, we don’t. We do not measure the output of mining, we guess it. We do not know the output of agriculture, we guess it, wildly, based on science that is known to be horribly incomplete and don’t even think about arguing with me on the last one, you’re not qualified.
We have no idea – at all – how much grasslands, farmland, or pasture absorbs, and the Kyoto figures for sequestration by forests are known to be, quite simply, imaginary.
Further, sequestration accounting rules are known to be at odds with the known science, insisting on 100 year lifespans for forestry even though most plantations cease to be of value around 20 to 50 years in and would be better buried, harvested, or thrown in the sea, and re-planted.
Last, SteveC has no answer, none, for the impact of increases in the marginal cost of production of everything, because he simply can’t conceive of it.
Wreckage
I recall reading once that we could basically reduce global emissions by about 8%, which is a big nut, if we put out all the fires currently burning in coal open cuts around the world. Pretty funny.
Recall how we thought we were okay on the public sector pension side of things and those louses were taken care of. Well maybe not.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/pensions-blowout-a-risk-to-future-fund-aaa-rating/story-fn59nsif-1226396079751
You know what, fuck’em. Tell them that’s all there is and happy retirement. Maybe they should stop sending money to GetUp.
Why are these pricks getting defined benefit pensions?
Nice sized egg that dropped out of the hen here.
Arab Spring. My fucking arse.
These fuckers couldn’t organize a root in a brothel without fucking it up. They get the vote and they go for the worst fuckers on earth.. the Muslim Bros.
Combet hasn’t released the names of all the top 500
“polluting”wealth generating companies yet so how can he forecast the overall cost implications with any degree of certainty?15% from electricity retailers here, 8% from councils there, 5% from a widgit manufacture. They will all trickle down to the hapless punter and swamp their pitiful predictions. Its not only your own electricity but every other service provider and merchant who will add to the $3.30.
They must be barking mad to think that we will be better off.
Splat, don’t think of the jobs, don’t think of the “uncertainty”, don’t think of anything…
…just recite this homily to yourself…
Or: “I am quite proud to belong to a nation that will take a leadership role in reducing global carbon emissions – by having the world’s worst GDP performance over the next decade”
Thats what they really want.
Don’t think you’re not all whores, you are
@timecode 14:45