abnrmal91
Very Well-Known Member
Yes and No. Our EBA has no forced redundency in it. So they can't get rid of me. If it goes private they still have to abide by the EBA as it legally binding. Plus our EBA ends just before the next state election.
Carbon Tax - Is your opinion based on how much you make?
- Thread starter spilota_variegata
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
spilota_variegata
Very Well-Known Member
It was running just below 3% - 2.9 from memory. I could be off by a very small amount.
Why is Julia going around selling the carbon tax when regardless of what people think or say, she's going to push the bill through anyway? I think that's a great waste of money. BTW, how is she travelling to all the venues that she's speaking at? Is she going by bicycle or is she traveling in that gas guzzler of car that's provided to her?
Last edited:
I just came from a thread where people were posting what they kept in their collections, and I must say that there are people on this site that should be terrified at even the smallest possibility of a slight increase in power bills 
spilota_variegata
Very Well-Known Member
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple math’s and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
· If you had a room 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x ..25m x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
· Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2 of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
· By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
· Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004%.
· Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
· Of that - because we only contribute 1% - our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = ..0000008%.
· Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = ..00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin – Yes, a small pin
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
Some other important facts:
· Coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economizers and re-heaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
· The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
· Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
· The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
· China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
· We have, like the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. No one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
· The maximum size of a wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind.
· Most windmills only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
· The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts.
· Only small parts of the energy comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System, because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain.
· Australia would require over 33,300 wind generators based on an average output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power).
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
· If you had a room 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x ..25m x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
· Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2 of the world's total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
· By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
· Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004%.
· Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
· Of that - because we only contribute 1% - our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = ..0000008%.
· Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = ..00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin – Yes, a small pin
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that?
Some other important facts:
· Coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economizers and re-heaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
· The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
· Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
· The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
· China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
· We have, like the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. No one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
· The maximum size of a wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind.
· Most windmills only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
· The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts.
· Only small parts of the energy comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System, because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain.
· Australia would require over 33,300 wind generators based on an average output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power).
It's a bit like 200 snakes in a big enclosure with a large water dish. And the snakes are crapping in their water dish. One snake (possibly with red markings around its head) turns to another and says, "This isn't going to be very healthy for us if we keep doing this, but if you and I work together we can reduce the amount of times we crap in our water dish by 20%." "What about the other 198 snakes?" "Don't worry about them, snakes don't like working together anyway. They prefer to fight over resources in a struggle for enclosural economic supremacy."
W
wokka
Guest
It is logical that if you keep digging up something and destroying it, eventually that something will run out. What do we do when we run out of coal and gas? A lot of people say it will never run out. Well, considering the rate that consumption has increased over the last few decades, if that rate continues resources will run out. Great for the companies and individuals reaping the benefits now, but not particularly fair or sustainable for those in the future.
jack
Very Well-Known Member
you seem to be arguing that such a small % of something can do no harm, in that case why not add 0.007% heroin or 0.00002% plutonium (as % total body mass) to your body...
spilota_variegata
Very Well-Known Member
I'm talking about a small percentile increase of a naturally occurring gas, not a foreign substance. I' m sure if plutonium and heroin naturally occurred in the human body, such a small increase would have no adverse impact on your health.
Both lead and mercury are found in trace amounts in the human body. A .007% increase in either would not be a measurable amount, probably within the "fudge factor" of the method of measurement and definitely not a concern to your health.
abnrmal91
Very Well-Known Member
I think you would have a nice green glow if you added plutonium.
I know exactly what you mean, little changes can make a big difference.
Spilotavariagata, I get where you are coming from. It is all very 'minute'. But I think conservationists don't just think about the next 50 years, but more the next 20,000. I don't think I agree so much with the taxing part, unless the money goes towards rebates on solar, insulation etc to ensure sustainability. But i doubt it will. However I do think that any kind of hype (be it the climate change debate etc) that results in us being more eco minded is a good thing, regardless of whether it is true or not. My 2c
- Status
