Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

Old 4th Jun 2012, 05:44
  #181 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 58
Posts: 154

Totally with you . I live north of you and flying over the Hunter is like flying over a moonscape. Driving down towards Sydney the coal smell starts around Scone. Something has to be done, for our kids if not for us. But solar and wind aren't a magic fix. Even if you covered the centre of Australia with panels, the transmission loss to the coastal population centres would be horrendous, and demand IS high at night, a lot of industry rocks on, street and home lighting rocks on, Off peak water rocks on.... I don't know what the answer is. We have arrrived at this point through free enterprise and consumer demand and technological progress. Fingers crossed those three take us to the solution.
Come a a little bit further north my friend. Coal mines are miles away (so far), and so are those smelly power stations.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2012, 05:57
  #182 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2012
Location: fantasyisland
Age: 60
Posts: 4
The USA is starting to talk about a carbon Tax. They will adopt it. The countries with mining such as Africa , South America etc are starting to rumble about a mining tax.... Maybe we don't want to be exploited by the rich anyone they are whispering..... and its getting louder.

Or should we elect Clivey for treasurer, and get lovely Gina on the Fairfax board so she can sue and threaten any one who contacts fairfax with a story she doesn't like in the fashion she has with the WA newspaper.

Remember how freaked out everyone was when the GST came about. And remember how the political leader who tried to push it through initially lost his top job, but next guy pushed it through after his predecessors hard ground work.....

My memory is not brilliant.... but really?
hardon69 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2012, 06:37
  #183 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
An interesting read on spinning (not "idling" reserve), solar thermal and wind capacity factors and night-time power requirements.

A nation still drawing 18,000MW in it’s sleep can’t go solar… JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

And it is all too easy to go down the Milne or Bandt road and say "let`s do it" with solar and wind - except it will be megabucks...and if Australia somehow halved its power requirements and went all renewables for stationary power...which would be available most of the time...probably...it ain`t the Greens` usual "Mr Nobody" who will be footing the bill.

Oh, I forgot - that`s what the carbon (dioxide) tax is for!

And to yet again ask that inconvenient question - through Australia`s actions, by how much will the earth`s temperature....oh, never mind...
konstantin is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2012, 08:41
  #184 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
we need another ice age
Just keep your fingers crossed it ain`t one of these;

Younger Dryas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
konstantin is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2012, 13:15
  #185 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 931
Thats the problem with solar/wind. It cannot reliably generate baseload power.

I'm a big fan of nuclear power, it is relatively clean. The biggest problem with nuclear power, as proved by fukushima, is that it relies heavily on water for both generating steam and for controlling. The nuclear waste is actually easily managed due to its half life.

In some senses, meeting the water requirement of a Nuclear station is best met by sticking it on the coast. This brings new challenges, as you are constantly dealing with salt water and its inherent corrosion issues, and desalination for direct core cooling, and boiling for the turbines.

Looking at Vic. We are ripe for Australia's first Nuclear Power station. We have a desalination plant that is not required at this point. It absorbs VAST amounts of power to convert sea water into potable. I see a proposition of mutual benefit. Bang a nuclear plant right next door. You remove the power transmission costs. The desal gets free power, the nuclear plant gets free fresh water. its win win win.

In this case, the devastation caused by Fukushima is not an issue, as whilst the location i propose is still coastal, its not coastal to one of the world's angriest oceans.
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 03:37
  #186 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
This about covers it - parts 2/3/4 and 5 cover more.

Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 6th Jun 2012 at 03:37.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 07:32
  #187 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
London's air cleaner because people care? Or because the government spent vast amounts of (tax payer's!) money on installing gas and electricity to every home? Did we get the lead out of petrol because people care, or because governments mandated it? And what about CFCs? When I was a kid we had plenty of drinking water pollution scares because of what was dumped into the Rhine up stream. I guess BASF, et al. simply "cared" enough to clean up their act?

What a tool...
baswell is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 07:41
  #188 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,190
I'm a big fan of nuclear power, it is relatively clean
Streuth, it never ceases to amaze me that there are still pawns of the nuclear industry out there. It would really pay for you to do a bit of research. Fukushima is a disaster of epic proportions and there are hundreds more potential Fukushima reactors areound the world, ticking time bombs that no one can afford to shut down and clean up. The really big problem has always been that the proponents of these things are old men, codgers who will no longer be around when the reactor's use by date arrives.

Germany has abandoned this technology, Japan has seen the light but heck some dumb Aussies still want one on the coast near a major city.

But you won't take my word for it, you won't do the research, you will say the naysayers are conspiracy nuts, Fukushima is not that bad (cause the papers tell you so) and you will continue to think a bigger more consumeristic Australia is a good thing. Tell me truthfully, would you like one next door to you?

Last edited by Aussie Bob; 6th Jun 2012 at 07:45. Reason: Poor spelling
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 09:39
  #189 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 931
I LOVE your response! Seriously!

I'm no pawn of the Nuclear Industry, more of a pawn of the Gas fired method.

I have considered the things you mentioned LONG ago. I have always felt that our energy needs (which will only ever increase) should be met by all technologies available.

Lets have a look what is available today:-

1. Ocean Wave
2. Solar
3. Wind
4. Gas
5. Coal Seam Gas (fracking)
6. Coal
7. Hydro
8. Nuclear

Ocean Wave. A technology in its infancy. Should be able to provide baseload power unless the seas are calm. Chances the Guvmint will provide research dollars from our carbon tax for development of the technology? Chances some greenie will oppose it to save a sea grass.

Solar and Wind. Again, the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow. Cannot provide baseload power. Again the greenies get involved.

Gas. Produces CO2 so going to be taxed to hell and back. The greenies hate em wherever you put em.

Coal Seam Gas. I'm with the greenies on this one. Not enough is known about its effects. Actually banned in a few countries. We have enough other resources to use. Remember this technology only came about in the late 1940's but was never commercially applied until around 1996 (?) We know less about it than we do wave tech.

Coal. As for Gas, added to both, we're happy to ship millions of tonnes to non environmentally countries every year.

Hydro. Another one the greenies hate, as it usually involves damming a river. The snowy project is probably hydro's golden child. Never looked at it? It is worth the read.

Nuclear. Next time you are getting a CT scan or similar, remember that without a nuclear power station, they wouldn't have the material that this and other technologies rely on.

There is not ONE power source that does not have an associated environmental risk. Every time you try to show me one, I'll show you the impact.

As for Nuclear Power in Australia.
You've listed but 1 of the three Nuclear disasters that have affected humans directly (short of listing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as they were man made and planned events).

1. Three Mile Island. The investigation clearly points to Human error via lack of training as being the major contributor. Sure they had some equipment failures, but they were all exacerbated the lack of training. How and why nuclear power works is totally understood. With todays computing power, it isn't hard to produce a simulator for crew training. If you think a simulator isn't good enough, remember that when you begin your next sim session.

2. Chernobyl. A VERY badly managed experiment. Today, much of the experiment they were conducting can actually be acheived by computer modelling. The remainder can be left to smaller reactors, where the operators are heavily trained for 'events' and said reactor exists only for research. READ Lucas Heights in NSW.

3. Fukushima. I agree with you. This plant is a clear demonstration of stupidity, on a design that requires the highest level of maintenance. Why would anyone group the backup pumps in the same location as the primaries? Tho i doubt it would have helped too much. At least it needed a connection to the primary water supply so that they had something to use for cooling whilst they attempted a safe shutdown. Have you read the 726 page analysis on this? Probably not...must admit i skipped a page or two.

The biggest problem for nuclear power is the VAST amount of water they need to operate safely. Sticking them on the coast solves this in the short term, but ramps up the maintenance cost and overall output. The salinity of the water is harsh on all the equipment, and is the driving denominator in the maintenance.

The problem with nuclear power here in australia, is providing that water source without resorting to salt water. Our inland supplies cannot be guaranteed. Coastally, for a salt cooled plant, we have quite a few locations that are not Tsunami vulnerable (Unlike Fukushima living on the Ring of Fire)

To my mind, we have 2 locations very suitable to Freshwater cooled Nuclear Plants. 1. At the bottom of the snowy river scheme. It'd probably need a cooling pond built to go with it, as am unsure of the physics of pumping hot water back to the top. 2. Right bloody next to the Desal Plant in Wonthaggi, Vic. It is coastal, but its land locked coastal providing solid protection against a Tsunami event. You have the Desal plant next door which needs vast amounts of energy. The Nuclear plant needs huge amounts of fresh water. Looks mutually beneficial to me. Current forecasts, are that it is going to be 10 years now before victoria needs our desal plant to produce any fresh water, so a 20 odd billion dollar project is going to sit there unneeded. If you stick a nuclear next to it and force it to make water, you can bet your A that the guvmint will start buying water from the plant to supplant its OPEN evaporative water storages, and we'd get something for our money.

Countries like japan went nuts building nuclear power, as they don't have the coal reserves. Clearly its efficient power.

Would I live near a nuke plant? Got no problem with that. Heck if i wind up glowing in the dark, it'd save me a tonnage on lighting costs

As you can see, I have considered this in some depth. My comment of being a fan of Nuclear power isn't something I threw in the air lightly, it has been thought about in depth.

As for being old and not caring about what the next generation has to contend with.......... I am under 40.

jas24zzk is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 09:43
  #190 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Oops...wrong vid...not that the other one is not accurate.

Oh and Baswell banning manmade CFCs was a con too. As for TEL in fuel - plenty of reputable scientists decried the demonisation of TEL at the time. A study was done in Australia in the early 80s comparing levels of lead in humans in Melbourne and a remote Island in PNG that had NEVER seen a car. Guess who had the higher levels of lead in their systems?

Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 6th Jun 2012 at 09:49.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 10:06
  #191 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,190
I LOVE your response! Seriously!
Cheers Jas, seriously I love your response as well! A good bit of nuke debating brightens a pilots forum no end. Too tired now though, for the time being I will just agree to disagree, apart from pointing out that if you think the greenies are a problem over dams, come nuclear "you aint seen nothing yet".
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 10:17
  #192 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 931
I guess the thing with nuclear, is it hasn't seriously been debated properly in the public forum in the country yet.

As I alluded to in my post, it will not matter what technology you use, the greenies will always knock.

I think the best summary of my thoughts is that, Nuclear should be properly considered as PART of the energy equation, not its total solution.
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2012, 10:28
  #193 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I'm unsure if British Thermal Units are even a measurement these days, but my history as a Human Being on this Planet includes being a qualified gasfitter. As such I know the BTU output relative to the fuel ingested is mostly perfect when you burn coal. I doubt anything except neuclear power would come anywhere near it's efficiency. Wind farms, solar, wave farms are a myth in economic terms.

And guess what?

Australia has enough coal to meet our BTU needs for the next six million years. Brave figures I hear you say, but none worse than the alternative vegans answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

Probably a conservative guess compared with "the science" that "is in" and "models" show that shoving a big wind turbine on an XPT will cut rail transport by some ridiculous margin. (watch out for tunnels).
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2012, 18:19
  #194 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Solar thermal
Local tri-generation
^^^ base load low emissions

Plus existing ebb-and-flow renewables (PV etc)

Technically it's not hard to reduce emissions *sufficiently* either through tax incentives and/or direct govt investment - which is already happening.

ALP or Coalition, the targets are the same and the cost to the economy is much the same. It's who pays the cost within the economy that changes.

Who pays the brunt of inaction on surplus CO2 emissions? Literally and ultimately it's the re-insurance industry. They have a bit to say on the matter.
Duff Man is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2012, 23:51
  #195 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
The the people of Australia ALWAYS pay in the end either directly or indirectly... whether it be by tax or purchasing an item or service (which is taxed or excised!) The government has no other source of funds - has it?
Animalclub is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2012, 07:21
  #196 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
The the people of Australia ALWAYS pay in the end either directly or indirectly...
Don't you mean: "people ALWAYS pay in the end"?

It's the same everywhere, mate. (Just that we pay less than just about everyone else, our government does an amazing job providing the level of services it does on such a low ratio of tax to GDP.)

The government has no other source of funds - has it?
Uhm, no, it doesn't.
baswell is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2012, 23:01
  #197 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 769
Avgas in the U.S. is $5.60 a gallon at Eden Prarie in MN which prices is very close to AUS prices.

$5.60 / 3.77 = $1.49 a litre

Don't believe there is any relief in sight any time soon.
T28D is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2012, 03:00
  #198 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Did I read somewhere that Delta was buying or has bought an oil refinery/company?
Animalclub is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2012, 03:31
  #199 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
T28D the last avgas I bought at YRED 10 days ago was $2.05/liter.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2012, 06:52
  #200 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,855
$2.15 at YSGE yesterday and I bet they do not make a fortune from it.

US$6 per USG is about AUD$1.52 here.......ahhh the same as mogas, we pay about 1/3 more than the US folk do.
Jabawocky is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.