The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Can we move to a low carbon economy without a carbon price? > Comments

Can we move to a low carbon economy without a carbon price? : Comments

By Ben Rose, published 1/6/2011

The Liberal Party is proposing some of the most expensive and least accountable solutions to carbon pollution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Simply abolish the baby bonus. Now why didn't I think of that:) Ralph Bennett....you are spot on. To give low IQ money......is the worst thing any government can do. Its like paying a bunch of dino,s to keep the jails of life happy, while the world passes them by:) but Runner or Evolution.......some things work, and some things dont:).........Sorry:) Iam being cheeky;)

LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Wednesday, 1 June 2011 11:51:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1

The cane industry only needs its processing plant a few months a year. It burns the bagasse for its own steam and power consumption, and exports very little of it. At the end of the cane season the mills shut down, and have no need for generation.

As an energy consultant you seem poorly versed in what you are quoting.

PS Bagasse is light and fluffy, and the 100t/hr or so would fill a vast area that would need fire protection. Are you kidding?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 2 June 2011 6:06:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
roses anyone who has driven past the masses of cain fields
know how big that gets...[its spread over miles and miles]
thus they needed to lay..'infastructure'..light rail

thing is if it wernt cane..it would be swamp
trees holding hundreds of years of carbon

and there lies a key
your 'link' said

""cleaner than fossil fuels.""
we know fuels can be dirty..
[brown coal is worse than black coal]
then peat is more dirty than brown coal
then bio is even more dirty..than brown coal
[so its hardly 'clean'

""And it is renewable -a tree grows,
it gets turned into energy releasing a fixed amount of carbon to the atmosphere,..and another tree grows..in its place which takes that carbon back in;..a closed carbon loop.""

OVER 100's OF YEARS..!
you dont 'kill a 100 year old tree
and have an instant tree back..as soon as you plant it

so burning black coal..would make less POLUTION
and its less carbon..still be there to grow new trees..

you kill a ton of tree carbon
to grow,,[maybe].a gram of tree

you kill to begin with
how long to regrow the first huge dose of carbon
your burning will take years to replace..its nutts

then add in put...to store the stuff
[extra carbon/wage inputs]

its just insane
to put it nicely

bio gas is the same lie
how much carbon is created collecting and processing the stuff

and dont think raising power costs is going to work
because inflation...will inflate your cost too..

just by inflation
doing what inflation does..
[deflate what you get..for a given $]

burning bushes
is more dirty that brown coal..!

""a project that will create 150 new jobs""
will ned ever bigger wages..as costs add to inflation

[then the infastucture..falicy...factor
increasing our power bills..

building gas lines..for exporters

and subsidisation..of greenie/folly
and free solar cells..and buy back subsidies]

selling sun/power..
while still using..*coal power
[or else why..a buy back input credit subsidy]

if you got solar credit
you got it..by coal deficite

ie clever accounting
and didnt reduce polution
only hid it on top of ya roof
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 2 June 2011 11:41:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roses1 - took a closer look at the biomass stats you cite.. I really only had time for Finland. What seems to have happened is that up to the 1940s they cut down a lot of wood for firewood .. since then they have switched to using the wood they used for fires for heating boilers in major hot water systems? can't quite make it out. As I suspected, its not a matter of using wood in big-time power stations. As shadow minister points out, its way too variable a fuel source.

But in Finland's case they've always used wood big time for their heating requirements, they've got lots of big forests to hand and they're set up to do it. Cutting down forests on the same scale in Australia is asking for trouble, and as has already been pointed out, suger waste is seasonal. Expecting 10 per cent of electricity from biomass in Aus.. you're dreaming.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 June 2011 12:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find several possible faults with this article's logic:
1. Using Biomass fuel for a comparison was always going to be questionable, due to limits on fuel availability - and/or impacts on food production,
2. Mr Rose also quotes two different prices for biomass - $45/MWh in the article, and $170/MWh in a post on 1 June,
3. Allowing price increases from a carbon tax/ETS to be simply passed on removes incentive for innovation and investment, putting pressure only on consumers to economise,
4. The author has not taken into account the pressure for wage increases which must result from increased prices for very many commodities, and which will then compensate consumers and enable old usage habits to be restored,
5. Electricity production is not the only use of fossil fuels or producer of CO2 (ref. metals/chemicals/etc production) - hence, taxing all primary fossil inputs would be both simpler and more encompassing,
6. In summary, the case for a C Tax/ETS has not been demonstrated,
7. The author is mistaken about agri-sequestration, in that plantation forests must be harvested and then replanted on rotation to maximise carbon capture and storage - with the lumber being utilised for housing etc.

In similar fashion, the author has not presented the Coalition's approach fairly or accurately.

An alternative proposal:
1. Freeze prices and wages,
2. Tax all primary fossil fuel inputs, and use the income to foster alternatives R&D, pilot schemes, and full-scale implementation,
3. Set emission caps and work with industry to achieve these, and set penalties for non-compliance,
4. Develop viable energy alternatives through broad consultation with industry, and plan tax incentives and development grants to foster the development of the most effective fossil-alternative production systems - be it for electricity production, materials processing (aluminium smelting, steel production, etc), and chemicals manufacture, etc.
5. Keep an open mind on alternatives,
6. Promote a World Forests Fund to work for preservation and restoration of old world forests.

Final note: MWh and MW are not interchangeable; uniformity would be helpful.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 4 June 2011 8:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To answer some good points raised:
Curm et al - this table is only an example of a hypothetical renewable project that would become viable with that carbon price, to illustrate how the carbon price works. It’s not an attempt at a definitive costing of biomass – this is of course variable depending on the cost paid for feedstock, scale, technology etc. Sorry if I was not clear enough and for any confusion here. I do intend to post an article on biomass energy from growing oil mallees – will show more detail.
Saltpetre it’s good to see you proposing other alternatives. As stated in the article I agree that relying on any one action will not be enough, it will take many. Taxing all fossil fuel inputs as you suggest is essentially the same as a carbon tax; emissions are calculated directly from the fuels burned. You mention caps – yes an essential part of the cap and trade scheme currently proposed – the price goes up as emitters are forced to meet their caps. I don’t think Liberal policy to pay emitters to reduce emissions will work, do you?
‘One under God’ –biomass is no way as carbon polluting as brown coal or for that matter any fossil fuel and I will try to explain why. Yes the CO2 goes into the atmosphere but it has only recently been taken out of the air by plants and is returned to it when plantations regrow – a closed cycle of say 20 years. For this reason Kyoto rules do not count this CO2 and biomass power plants are generally estimated to be less than 1/10th as carbon polluting as coal (there is some fossil fuel used in transport and construction). On the other hand when ‘fossil’ carbon – coal and oil has been locked up in the ground for millions of years - is returned to the air in huge quantities it is much more than any plantations take up. This is what is causing the problem of sudden CO2 increase and global warming
Posted by Roses1, Monday, 6 June 2011 12:23:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy