The EU ETS was rorted totally by the Russian oligarchs which was where
they got the money to take over the Russian oil industry and other industries.
From what I can see the system has not been repaired so it could be
disastrous for Australia to get involved.
It might be the reason that the EU commission did not make the changes that were proposed.

Individual,
the fuel cells have a problem that no one has yet solved
that I have heard. Not that anyone would tell me, but I think if the
fundamental problem is solved they will be everywhere.

I thought all the trialled fuel cell buses, in WA ran on hydrogen?
At $6.00 plus per cubic metre, hydrogen extracted from NG, as supplied by the fossil fuel industry, is not a cheap option.
The traditional platinum catalyst, is easily soured by impurities?
The ceramic fuel cell is a very different kettle of fish.
The very expensive platinum has been replaced by comparatively inexpensive polymers; and runs quite happily on neat methane; producing mostly water vapour as the exhaust, in a chemical reaction, rather than a Co2 creating burn.
Queensland's CNG buses, are still powered by conventional engines and therefore still produce some Co2 and all the other nasties associated with naturally aspirated, internal combustion engines.
Nearly every vehicle plying road or rail, with the plumbing tweaked, can quite happily run on CNG.
One cubic metre of CNG, has the same calorific value, as a litre of petrol.
We have quite massive reserves of NG, and significant LPG, occurring as well head condensate; but now have to import nearly every litre of petrol!
Yet all our major manufacturers, still churn out mostly petrol powered variants; even the hybrids!
Is that because they're owned by the oil companies?
If we are going to subsidise this production, then let it be as variants that run on copious locally available, much cheaper fuel.
Mine would be a CNG/ceramic fuel cell powered electric, with a world's best 72% energy coefficient and consequent longest range.
This would also produce a huge export market; but particularly, where there are worsening smog problems!
Conventional engines use up to 85% of their available power, spinning the flywheel?
Whereas, a fuel cell delivers all its energy production directly to the drive wheels and inboard amenities.
The acceleration is quite remarkable, given the torque of the electric engine.
Carbon fibre, would allow acceleration numbers 0-100 of under 3 seconds.
Top speed?
Well, the fastest quietest trains in the world are electric, and there really is no reason, why they can't be powered by inboard fuel cells and CNG, rather than incredibly expensive and lethal overhead wires!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, my information was on the UK govt & bus builders trials in the UK.
The trials were OK, except for the lifetime of the fuel cells.
I think, but I am not sure, the trials were pre ceramic cells.
Now that the UK is a oil importer in an increasing manner I am sure
they will try anything.

CNG is a problem in the UK as they have a rather precarious supply chain.

Hi Don,

The 40% decline in the trading value of EU emissions this April is actually further drop on the 40% announced just three months ago, January 2013.

<< The CCX collapsed in December 2010, by November 2012, Barclays US Carbon trading Desk closed, the UN, EU and NZ markets were trading at just off their all time lows at A$5.60, EU, UN backed credits A$8.45 and NZ trading A$4.10.
By January 2013 these markets had collapsed a further 40% with NZ trading at just US$ 2.00.>>
(From The Australian in January 2013)

This market rose to a peak above 30 Euros (about A$45) in 2006 and has savagely declined since. Like all trading markets the investors need certainty, confidence and a return on investment for that trade.

It is clear that this months collapse has come as a complete surprise to the many less enquiring Australians, for which we can blame the ABC and much of the commentariat for failing to keep the public informed.

We’ve had this discussion before on OLO in respect of the collapse of the global warming infrastructure and yet it seems that many just don’t know or understand the significance.

There is nothing left to encourage investors, not in the emissions trading markets, down from $45.00 in 2006 to $4.0 in 2013. Not in the renewable energy industrials with RENIXX down by 90% since 2007. No global governance or agreed targets from Kyoto with no replacement agreement.

The bottom line is that there is no global mechanism, no momentum and nor is there sufficient “energy” left in this market system for it ever to recover.

R.I.P.

"This means that the carbon tax of $23/t on CO2 is actually a tax of $84 per ton of carbon (or roughly per ton of coal or diesel etc) but it sounds better to use the lower figure."

The following sounds even better and even more accurate:

One tonne of carbon produces 3.67 tonne CO2, a greenhouse gas, when burned. 3.67 tonne taxed at $23/t comes to $84. Carbon is not a greenhouse gas, or even a gas. It is a solid that makes up most of coal. Diesel is a liquid hydrocarbon (i.e. made from carbon and hydrogen) and one tonne burned produces 3.16 tonne CO2 which, taxed at $23/t comes to around $73.

Whatever is the point of all this I do not know. Just thought I'd do my bit to help SM with his figurings.

LF,

Being an engineer involved in the generation of power, the costing are based on fuel input, not resultant output. Note that I used the word "roughly" which should take into account that not all coal is combustible, and that the carbon price creeps up to $29/t. If you wish to nitpick over specifics, please go ahead. The issue that was raised previously was that this was not a carbon tax but a tax on its oxide. The argument that the price is based on the pollutant value also does not consider the SO2 emitted nor the particulates, NOx etc.

It is a technicality that has meaning to some, whereas to others it goes over their heads.