Shell To Stop Selling Fuel With Ethanol ??

[bas]

Europe is next, only the worlds largest economy. And if they and us then start to put tariffs on imports from non-complying countries, we're on our way to getting them in line and making a difference!

 

 

[Powerin]

Don't forget we have the highest output of CO2 per capita in the world,

This is absolutely true, but is it really a fair statistic? We are responsible for a fairly large part of the Earth's landmass and by extension a large percentage of the atmosphere. The USA is of a similar area but has 14 times as many people. Even if they emitted 25% less per capita than us they would still emit an order of magnitude more C02 than we do for a similar proportion of atmosphere. To take the argument to the extreme, we should really crack down on the bases down in Antarctica because I bet their emissions per capita are off the scale. But in reality, of course, the Antarctic's total emissions are minuscule and so make the per capita metric meaningless.

Surely something like a per square kilometre metric would more meaningful. Applying this to Antartica you would come to a figure that truly reflects it's role in world's carbon emissions...minuscule.

 

If we can stop emitting so much CO2 and put off the next naturally-caused ice age another 10,000 years, that's just fine by be, and my grand kids.

As someone who tries to maintain a logical and balanced view of human induced climate change, this statement appeals to me as a strong reason to do something. But when such things as per capita figures and accusations of being in the pockets of mining companies start getting thrown about the sceptic in me comes to the fore.

 

Sorry about the thread drift :p

 

 

[bas]

This is absolutely true, but is it really a fair statistic?

Yup, it is the fairest of all! Why? CO2 output only happens because we as individuals want to buy stuff or power the stuff we bought. So it is up to the individual to reduce.

We can all do your bit by not complaining about the carbon tax making your electricity bills go up by 10% and instead lower your usage by the same amount; a figure very easy to achieve in just about any household.

 

That's how we're going to make a difference!

 

And that's what taxing will do: make use re-think if we really need these things (just like it does for tobacco and alcohol) or how we can make these things more efficiently and avoid the tax that way. Have our cake and eat it too...

 

Does this work? Europeans pay about twice as much as us for petrol, all due to excise. Their consumption per capita is about a third of what it is here because they have found more efficient ways to get around.

 

 

[Ignition]

Ok, I am over saying my interpretation of the science. Because like it was ever gonna make sense to people already immersed in the Green movement anyway. *sigh*

 

Does this work? Europeans pay about twice as much as us for petrol, all due to excise. Their consumption per capita is about a third of what it is here because they have found more efficient ways to get around.

Especially in countries like The Netherlands who are a very big population of push bike riders... Unfortunately Australia has horrible roads infrastructure to allow Bikes, People and Cars a separate patch to move around on, not to mention that pretty much everything is illegal or strict here... You can ride a bike without a helmet in The Netherlands (sure, helmets are proven safety wear, that's not the point before someone jumps on it)... we are stuck in a mothered society where we are padded as much as possible to stop us from getting hurt to the point where we are afraid to go outside... Come to think of it, Australia has shocking infrastructure (for a first world country) and our society is too strict for its own good. Ah such is life, but it'd be nice to have some more freedom and the fear mentality changed to focus on the positives, maybe then we would use more enviro-safe ways by our own choice while keeping the (lost to tax) money in our own pockets.

 

I'll see more of the future than most people in this thread (assuming I don't get hit by a truck by riding my bike on the road because of lack of bike paths), so the environment should concern me more... but the whole 'humans control nature and we need to tax the hell out of our struggling businesses to force them to either close, leaving people jobless and heading for poverty, or change' - I just don't buy it. (ps: I hate taxes. They are so uncreative and the word 'tax' just oozes of cash grab [you can only squeeze the sponge so much before it dries out].)

 

The Green Cult Movement is going about it the wrong way, rather than try to destroy our local businesses forcing everything off shore (which will certainly happen after the way businesses, at least in my own town, have been struggling after the GFC) and try to scare everyone and force them into using alternate technology, why not be a little more creative to bring around more efficient technology while supporting our people. (Just to make sure no one missed my view on efficient technology earlier... I am all for more efficient technology! [Just not for the same reason as the Greenies])

 

Australia has a long way to go before it will be able to stand up and lead the way without other countries laughing while saying "Lil' Australia wants to change our ways, cute." - we don't have as much influence on other countries as we would like to think.

 

 

[skeptic36]

We can all do your bit by not complaining about the carbon tax making your electricity bills go up by 10% and instead lower your usage by the same amount; a figure very easy to achieve in just about any household.

That's how we're going to make a difference!

 

And that's what taxing will do: make use re-think if we really need these things (just like it does for tobacco and alcohol) or how we can make these things more efficiently and avoid the tax that way. Have our cake and eat it too...

 

Does this work? Europeans pay about twice as much as us for petrol, all due to excise. Their consumption per capita is about a third of what it is here because they have found more efficient ways to get around.

Not sure how I can get my irrigation pumps to pump the same amount with 10% less power or my milk vat to cool the milk with 10% less power etc. I guess I could pump less water, grow less grass produce less milk and sack Tom, who is currently able to feed his family from some of the proceeds of my milk cheque. I would have to sack him to remain viable because I can't get any more money for the milk because it has to compete in the same market place as the Americans and many others who don't have to add the carbon tax to the cost of production.

 

It won't matter though, the government will have plenty of carbon tax money to give him.

 

While we are having our cake and eating it, the world will go on doing things like having trade agreements where we send beef to the U.S while they send their beef to Europe and we have to import some Chinese vegies we don't need or they won't buy our iron ore. They aren't worrying about all those ships blowing out heaps of that carbon while Recreational Aviators are sitting at home wondering if they can afford the fuel to fly this weekend.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[bas]

but the whole 'humans control nature and we need to tax the hell out of our struggling businesses

Businesses only pay tax over the money they don't pay out as either wages, dividend or expenses. Most small business pay very little tax. They think they do (because they hand over the GST customers pay them as well as the PAYG of employees' wages) but they don't; especially small business pay stuff all tax.

 

I hate taxes.

I don't! They efficiently fund public services and keep society ticking along and provide a stable business environment.

Look how the US is doing with their even lower taxes than ours and little useful public services like healthcare and education so people pay for it themselves - through the nose. Combined with pitifully low salaries, people can't afford to buy anything anymore and they are stuck in a downward spiral. Please don't lower Australian taxes. Force government to be even more efficient, but don't lower taxes, or cut back services. My customers won't be able to afford my products anymore!

 

rather than try to destroy our local businesses

Local business is being destroyed by large national business. A little bit of carbon tax is not going to make any difference.

 

why not be a little more creative to bring around more efficient technology

Government incentives, funded by tax are a great way to do that.

 

 

[bas]

Not sure how I can get my irrigation pumps to pump the same amount with 10% less power

The thing destroying your business is not higher energy cost, it is the Coles/Woolies cartel and you know it! It's just been going on for so long it seems normal. $1/litre milk, are they serious?

 

They aren't worrying about all those ships blowing out heaps of that carbon

Now there we agree; that system is so inefficient. I try to buy local meat, produce and dairy as much as I can. (But it's really hard to tell) Can we have seasons back in our supermarkets, please? And maybe stop growing rice and cotton for export so we can have a bit of water left by the time the Murray comes my way.

 

 

[Ignition]

Local business is being destroyed by large national business. A little bit of carbon tax is not going to make any difference.

By local business I mean all Australian businesses. With more costs, regardless of how large or small they may be, Australian businesses are not competitive on the international stage.

I won't bother with replying to you because there is no point. I disagree with your opinion, but each to their own.

 

 

[Guest Nerb]

By local business I mean all Australian businesses.

By Australian do you mean Rio Tinto (15% Aus owned) mining diamonds in Australia or BHP (40% Aus owned) in Bass Straight or Esso (0% Aus owned) in Bass straight or SXRUranium (0% Aus owned) mining uranium in SA or the East Timor gas fields jointly owned by a conglomerate which is 7% Aus owned or Xstrata (0% Aus owned) mining nickel in WA?

That is just some of Australias bigger resources projects. A tax on these companies (mining rent and carbon tax) will affect "Australian" businesses how? We see next to nothing of this money anyway! Sure, they employ a lot of people, but that money is a pittance to what theyre making. My business wont be affected.

 

Efficient technology is here.... you need to invest in it so that it can improve.

 

Not sure how I can get my irrigation pumps to pump the same amount with 10% less power or my milk vat to cool the milk with 10% less power etc.

Have you looked at solar panels? I put $8k of panels on my roof. They produce about 9kWh a day on average. (15 when its sunny). Thats $800 a year at the current electricity rate. With the feed in tariff thats $1900 a year (although this probably doesnt apply to a farmer?) So they will be paid off in 4 years (10 years if you ignore the feed in tariff and assume electricity wont go up in the next 10 years). I will never have another electricity bill.

Is this something you could do?

 

 

[Guest DWB]

There are clearly many people in this country not in touch with the real world.

 

Firstly, if we all reduce our electricity consumption by 10% as suggested, this means the power companies lose 10% of there income. They cannot reduce their infrastructure by 10%, They are already running with minimal staff thanks to technology. 10% less income means they run off to IPART & seek a 10% increase in tariffs to offset their losses & their wish WILL be granted. What has been achieved? SFA other than power consumption being reduced by 10% & staving off investment in new infrastructure for a couple of years. We the consumer get a double whammy. Inconvenience of using less power & paying the same as we did for more not to mention all the cost increases across the board as a result of the carbon tax.

 

Bill has highlighted the difficulties faced by farmers reducing electricity consumption. Doesn't work! Solar or wind generation cost establishment on farm to offset electricity cost/use is totally prohibitive Nerb. You obviously don't realise what power consumption is on farms. I don't know what Bill's irrigation size setup is but mine is 52kw in total over 2 pumps. Now I have tried to reduce power consumption & more so cost by irrigating with my Smart Metered pump at night only during mostly off peak & shoulder periods. Yes it has saved me money but at the greater expense of production & income. During summer (normal ones anyway) one of my irrigators runs almost continuously & even then I have trouble keeping up. Granted I can & do reduce my power where possible in my house, which represents a minuscule part of my electricity per annum in reality. Now Bill would probably love to have my electricity bills because I know what it costs to run a dairy.

 

Forcing businesses / companies to develop technologies to reduce CO2 by taxing them is a joke! How about giving some incentive to do it instead of a penalty.

 

 

[Guest Nerb]

Firstly domestic electricity consumption is small compared to industry. A household reduction of 10% will make no difference to electricity companies. In fact, it means they will pump more water into the snowy hydro scheme.

 

The carbon tax is supposed to encourage big energy users to reduce use or change to renewable energy sources.

 

Bill has highlighted only that he has not looked for solutions. The volume of electricity means nothing. In my example above a 9kW $8k system saves $800 a year... so a 90kW $80k will save $8000 a year. Still a 10 year pay back period. Your north of Syd, you probably see a lot more sunlight than I do.

 

Forcing businesses / companies to develop technologies to reduce CO2 by taxing them is a joke! How about giving some incentive to do it instead of a penalty.

What suggestion do you have?

Dex, this is my point. There are those who look for solutions and those that complain. Why arnt you either saying "i should look into solar/wind/hydro" or "i have looked at solar/hydro/wind and it turns out that i cannot-afford-it / it-would-not-save-money / ...." So far all the negative has been just that... guesses as far as i can see. I would love to see the economics from someone who has tried.

 

 

[Guest DWB]

Why arnt you either saying "i should look into solar/wind/hydro" or "i have looked at solar/hydro/wind and it turns out that i cannot-afford-it / it-would-not-save-money / ...." So far all the negative has been just that... guesses as far as i can see.

I can assure you Nerb, I'm not guessing. My best mate was doing a lot of wind & solar installations including work in this field for the CSIRO & when we looked at self sufficiency it was totally financially impossible. To borrow from memory $200k + the payback with interest was going to be around 25-30 years without taking into account maintenance costs which in the case of turbines are quite high. Even the CSIRO in Newcastle pulled down their 4 turbines due to breakdown/maintenance issues after only 5 or so years. Yes I even looked at a 10Kw solar setup at from memory was going to be about $50k. Unless I had the money burning a hole in my back pocket, which I didn't, it would not be a viable solution for any cost offset even at the then 60 cents. So I guess (& I am guessing now) that until electricity tariffs go through the absolute roof alternatives are not a viable option to anyone not cashed up. If the cost of solar panel & turbine setups drop in price dramatically this could help but I can't forsee that happening in real terms. The alternative - People will have to pay a lot more for my product or go without because I can go broke sitting on the beach watching the waves come in just as easy as working my backside off for nothing. A reality check is coming for many.

 

 

[skeptic36]

Firstly domestic electricity consumption is small compared to industry. A household reduction of 10% will make no difference to electricity companies. In fact, it means they will pump more water into the snowy hydro scheme.The carbon tax is supposed to encourage big energy users to reduce use or change to renewable energy sources.

Bill has highlighted only that he has not looked for solutions. The volume of electricity means nothing. In my example above a 9kW $8k system saves $800 a year... so a 90kW $80k will save $8000 a year. Still a 10 year pay back period. Your north of Syd, you probably see a lot more sunlight than I do.

 

What suggestion do you have?

 

Dex, this is my point. There are those who look for solutions and those that complain. Why arnt you either saying "i should look into solar/wind/hydro" or "i have looked at solar/hydro/wind and it turns out that i cannot-afford-it / it-would-not-save-money / ...." So far all the negative has been just that... guesses as far as i can see. I would love to see the economics from someone who has tried.

Nerb,

Exactly how did you glean from my post that I have not looked for solutions?

 

Several years ago I sold a property and so had money available (hard to believe now) One of the options I looked at was using that money in the farming business. The best place would be to reduce the biggest cost - energy. I looked at two options one was a wind turbine. The quote back then from Mcfarlane generators for a reconditioned generator similar to the ones (which I can only surmise must be highly subsidized to be viable) you see on the wind farms was $235k - no tower to sit it on, no electrical, infrastructure no installation costs. I can't remember the TBO for the thing but it was surprisingly short. The solar option was also nonviable although I don't recollect much about that except to say the solar array was going to need several acres allocated for it. Funny you should mention Hydro, I look at the power in the water flowing past my property every day and wonder how I could sneak a turbine in there, as yet I haven't thought of a way that wouldn't be obvious. Even with your naive ideals you would realise what would happen if I set up a turbine in a public waterway.

 

I'm guessing that your example is based on a heavily subsidized installation something not currently available to me.

 

Obviously I'm annoyed by your baseless aspersion and I will point out that:

 

You originally apologized for resurrecting an old thread because you couldn't allow the original poster to go unchallenged re the ethanol debate, and having been shown that ethanol is no better environmentally than fossil fuels you have backed away from that.

 

You have demanded all the way through that people provide sources for their information, but you have guaranteed that recycling paper is economically viable with no evidence offered and now you offer your (what I believe is a) government subsidized household solar system as evidence of how we can negate the carbon tax.

 

I will not comment further on this subject

 

Regards Bill

 

P.S I put that bit of money I had in the share market pre GFC, I bet you know how that's working out for me

 

 

[Guest Nerb]

Bill, your post #55 gave no indication whatsoever that you had looked at alternatives. It opened with "i guess i could pump less watter... sack Tom....". Im sorry if you thought it implied you had looked at alternatives. My post #59 asked you specifically if you had looked at solar. Maybe my post #61 was premature and I should have waited to see if you responded to post #59.

 

Post #62 and #63 is much more informative.(in part anyway and even without time frames)

 

The fact that this thread is now on its 3rd page shows people are interested with "likes" for various posts from people that havnt posted. I have discovered that Ethanol appears to be no better for "emissions", however it is still a more renewable source than fossil burning. So i would not say it is "no better environmentally". I havnt backed away. The thread is just careening all over the place.

 

I guaranteed that recycling paper uses less energy. I said "I couldnt say if it was cheaper". Please re-read.

 

My subsidized household system DOES negate my carbon tax costs. Its an example that things can be done. It is not a solution for all.

 

Im sorry your annoyed. The internet is a wonderful place for collecting ideas. If you used it as such it would be a much more pleasant experience. If you posted your power usage and were genuinly interested in lowering costs, maybe someone could offer a solution you havnt considered? This happens all the time on many forums. Maybe this is not the place.

 

Or we can end this thread here. Say its no longer aviation related. I dont want people upset.

 

 

[Guest aviatrix27]

Hmm, I've been reading this thread because I am a moderator and I need to reassure myself that there is nothing requiring moderation. I have deliberately "liked" posts which appeared to be well structured and reasoned responses - it does not necessarily mean I agree with the sentiment expressed in that post. Don't take it as my interest in the subject. My interest/belief is my business and nobody else's. The only reason I have let this thread go is because it hasn't yet degenerated into name calling or mud slinging.

 

I think I'll go fly my plane now.

 

 

[bas]

when we looked at self sufficiency it was totally financially impossible.

I can't comment on your business as you obviously need more power than I do. We've been looking at "hobby farm" land where Kylie can keep the horses and I (hopefully) be able to keep the aircraft. A lot of them have 11 KV running at the boundary, but by the time you pay for a transformer and have underground cables put in (yes, overhead at the boundary, but you are not allowed to go overhead to your house anymore!) you are looking upwards of $25K for the privilege of paying an annual supply fee and per kWh.

$25K is also the magic number for a solar system with overnight battery backup to power a reasonably sized residential property.

 

I reckon we are going to be self-sufficient when the time comes!

 

 

[willedoo]

you are looking upwards of $25K for the privilege of paying an annual supply fee and per kWh.$25K is also the magic number for a solar system with overnight battery backup to power a reasonably sized residential property.

I reckon we are going to be self-sufficient when the time comes!

Yes, bas, I'd imagine the gap in capital outlay between solar & mains power in rural areas would be starting to shrink a bit.

 

My own setup, on a twenty acre block, is 3 phase power, overhead for 100 metres, then underground for another 300 metres via 4 x 35mm cables. At the end of that, I can join 3x30metre 15 amp leads and still push a 3mm welding rod, so it's good power. Total outlay was $5000, but that was 20 years ago. I wouldn't like to be guessing what it would cost now.

 

A mate down the road set up a full solar system about the same time, he's never been connected to the grid. I'd only be guessing at his costs over the years, with back up diesel generators, batteries, maintenance & repairs & bills from the sparky to troubleshoot. It would probably be about twice what mains power has cost me (including power bills) over the same period of time. It's a lot of ongoing work to maintain an independant system, he's spent a lot of his life constantly tinkering & fixing it, but he really likes the idea of being independant of the grid. I suppose it's become a hobby of sorts, you would never do it just singly for the purpose of saving money.

 

If I took into account what my grid connection would cost today, the gap would be narrowed quite a bit. I'd estimate that when we both hit our late 60's, we'd be even on costs, but he's had the satisfaction of providing his own power all those years. I'm only talking about running a household, here. A farm is a different situation. Power useage for a beef cattle grazing property, or dryland farming is not much more than a small hobby farm / residential rural block. A bit extra for workshop use, welding etc, but not much. Irrigation farms & dairy farms have an entirely different power useage again & wouldn't be real easy to do on alternative power.

 

I guess with a hobby farm, solar can be a lifestyle choice as part of it.