Really? BHP is magically going to find another huge heap of copper and Uranium? And Rio is going to find other people to sell electricity to and just pack up shop here?

Seriously, what major manufacturing is still left in Australia that would leave because of a tiny percentage increase in their cost?

Only if you care about short term return. In the long term, they are all cheaper.

That's what we have enough existing fossil burning plants for. Nuclear is a great option for base load too.

If more than half of the households (yes, including multiple-income families) earn less than $40K/year, have no hope of a pension, child care financial help or medical insurance to speak of, then yes, I call that "pitiful".

You are not seriously trying to suggest the US economy (and the policies that created it) is all hunk-dory, right?

Thorium will be the next big ticket item. Cleaner than coal and safer than Uranium.
Although I think Baswell is a strange git I do agree with he/she that Rio and BHP are full of ****e, they aren't going anywhere. Too much coal to feed to third world countries who couldn't give a rats ass about global warming/climate/carbon/emissions etc etc. And now that Japan doesn't need our Uranium we can change the rules of the game and start flogging it to India who have promised to use it for energy purposes only and not for any of those nasty bombs!

Abbott is on record of saying if he puts the aboloition of the carbon tax to the senate more than twice, he "WILL CALL A DOUBLE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT", which for the sake of say, Thompson, he can achieve and put the prophecy to the vote.

Bring it on Cobber.

Poor Bas, backing loosers. Stewth mate get a grip.

Ah, weather vane Tony, who back in 2009 was quoted as saying, "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax."

Yes what great choices we have? A middle aged union hater who still wears his Sluggers around Manly or the red haired freak who is going to cop a Labor 'Guiness Book Of Records' hiding next election?

Hate to say it Australia but we are fu#ked.

.

Heh, caint have that Rusty1970 - we best inform yer then..:)



It is not a broken promise, its an outright lie - and it wont last three years..:)



Lets have a look-see...

Europe = basket case. Will the euro even survive ?

South Korea = Dunno ?

China = Tell me more about China doin a carbon tax. Do you believe them..:hmm:

California = Bankrupt. Just how bad... A couple of years ago there were plans for California to sell some parks to pay state employee wages... Business is leaving the state and moving to Texas etc...



Yes, more and more business will either send the jobs off shore or close..:hmm:



Anyone who has followed this subject here will know that I've been researching and debating this subject fairly intensly for years now.

In the beginning we had Al Gores carbon scam helped along by green hysteria and it just went down hill from there..... The whole carbon tax/trading is based on corruption.




Via Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research -

There is a fair amount of reasonable science behind the global warming debate, but in general, and give or take a religion or two, never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence. One wonders why.









.

.

Tell us more baswell, just what do the advertyzzin tell us ?







.

I take it you are referring to the long term damage to Mother Gaia:rolleyes:, because the economics suck.
You can't just flick on a switch and get a fossil fueled power plant to start up like a portable generator. It needs hours to wind up and wind down, which means it has to be running at close to normal output anyway in case wind and solar generation tail off. Fossil fueled power plants also run efficiently at constant output. Decrease and increase output like a car in city traffic and efficiency drops and "pollution" increases.
BTW, there's a difference between individual income and household income. Check it out.
Want to see a preview of what happens with the introduction of a CO2 tax? As Flying Binghi pointed out, look no further than California. The state is close to bankrupt and it has a business exodus for destinations east that rivals the gold rush to the region in 1849 (sarc).
Which country is going to be the first to leave the EU...Greece, France or Germany? Germany is refurbishing its coal generation program. It relied on PV and wind and is discontinuing nuclear, but the money is running out like water through a drainpipe and someone is starting to notice that unless they do something fast, there will be a desperate and dangerous shortage of power.

Speaking of solar panels, a quick question. If you shine 100 watts of light onto a solar panel, how many watts do you get back?

Frank, is that an incandescent 100W light bulb, or the flourescent or LED equivalent?

so....

...if this won't have much effect on the price of anything, how will it effect on our consumption and therefore the emissions of airborne carbon?

Of course, the toyota corollary to this is if the carbon tax does have some effect, it must make things more expensive, surely?

...and the problem with our economy isn't that it's socialist or corporatist or whatever. The main problem is that we are moving towards a centrally planned economy - we all know how well they worked out by the late '80s. I know for a fact that the centrally planned economy is the ambition because Juliar and her ilk keep banging on about how well the government is managing the economy. My guess is when it really turns pear-shaped, it will be all the excuse they are looking for to 'manage' it even more! :eek:

I can't even spell half those words, but I'm guessing 100 Watts of equivalent solar light. Do you get 100 Watts back or less/ more than the 100 watts taken in? I do have an interest in solar powered aeroplanes, but can't believe how they work. Also a Toyota Prius with a Hybrid set up is fairly expensive, so what do I get back for the extra output of cash?

A slow POS, that doesn't have that much of a lower fuel burn, uses more energy to build, and even more energy to dispose of, with it's resultant harmful chemicals etc....

and it won't tow the ski boat! :sad:

I recall Dr Karl on Jjj saying that at the equator, 1sm of surface area under direct sunlight will receive the equivalent of 1 watt of electricity in solar energy.

More like 1kW, UL. A square metre of PV will give you about 150-200W of electricity on a good day in direct sunshine

...with the sunlight striking at or close to perpendicular; no dust, scratches, bird crap, salt spray or pollen on the glass; at around 25C and absolutely no shadows of any size; straight out of the box (they lose about 5% output in the first year and about 1% every year thereafter). After about 25 to 30 years, the good ones are done. So far, there is no recycle program for them either, so at present, they end up at the dump.

More bad news for the Mother Gaia supporters: USA Oil Boom

With traditional oil mining techniques, it is estimated that only about 5% of oil in the wells has been recovered. Frakking is opening up huge resources in the USA. Peak oil? Not in my lifetime and probably not in the lifetime of my great grandkids.

And we haven't even touched oil shale in the USA yet: recoverable oil equal to total world oil supply

Don't bet on the stock exchange baswell: Green Power Failure

Well, Rusty 1970 you reckon this is the least informed debate you have heard on this subject hey?

You were probably referring to my last post when you made this statement:
You know what? That is plain wrong. Aeromedical might be exempt but aviation transport fuel is most definitely going to be taxed. That's right, aviation - where technological developments are an industry imperative and where leaps and bounds in efficiency measures are made all the time - is being singled out for prime pickings while other less innovative sectors of transport get exempt (some only temporarily).

RAAA director Jim Davis is quoted in the latest AA edition as saying "The annual cost to RAAA members of the carbon tax, being imposed through an increase in the levy on aviation fuels, is estimated at over $20 million a year but it will bring no efficiency gains or reductions in emissions." (my bolding). That's right: estimated $20 million a year with absolutely ZERO environmental results to gain from it. That is why I call it a phoney tax!

You know what else? You might be partially right in that SOME transport will not be taxed. That's right, the vast sums of private motor vehicles. Also trucks will be exempt but only until 2014. That is the other big problem with this tax. Softly, softly approach and bring destruction by stealth. It might seem okay to start with and I'm not suggesting that the sky is going to fall in on July 1. However typical of the 'in the moment' generation, ignore the future consequences of where this will lead with subsequent changes and the fact that the 'set price' on carbon will only go up from the already inflated inaugural figures that are always being used with examples currently being bandied around. This tax IS going to cost with major consequences, and the most maddening thing is that there won't even be anything good to show for it...

This looks a lot like anti-green rhetoric without much foundation. Spreading this kind of misinformation is merely ammunition for the rabid greenies.

The truth is, noone really knows the lifespan of solar PV, but it's certainly in the decades. How many is anyone's guess...

More here

Well, I believe that bloke's rhetoric. Had dinner with him in 2004.

I thought Dr Karl's ideology was fairly green and he didn't appear to be evasive on any topics brought up in front of me.

But no wonder those electric aeroplanes need large wings. Not just the high aspect ratio, but somewhere to put the panels.

Quick EDIT to ask another.

How long do these new fangled battery's last, and what happens to them when they do die?

Dream on Andy, after 20 odd years in the solar industry I have left a bit disillusioned. You see, all the panels I put in 10 - 15 odd years ago are failing and quite a few I have fitted in the last five years are on the way out. Some panels may last 25 years plus, but not all and in the case of the grid connect systems that are everywhere, the failure of a single panel will stop the entire array working until the faulty panel is replaced. Replacements are hard to come by, warranty service is abysmal, roofs are leaking and the whole shebang was/is sponsored by taxpayers. On top of that grid feed inverters are not as reliable as promised .... Further to that, the average grid feed punter would have no idea if their system was even working correctly.

I also agree with Lodown, output degradation starts when these things first see sun. This is why the 20 year guarantees you talk about are output related and at 10 years, the output guarantee is only 80%. Further tho this most solar manufacturers who offer 20 plus years of warranty haven't even been in the business 5 years!

Don't get me wrong though, I live with solar power, love making my own electricity and wouldn't take a grid connection if it was offered free. Unfortunately the unreliability and warranty issues have made long term solar folk slightly peeved.

The big problem is that electricity consumption per person is rising around 10% per annum and most people have absolutely no idea how much electricity they currently consume. Do you?