Printable View
It was my understanding that the lowest terrestrial surface point in Australia wasthe shore of Deep Lake in the Vesfold Hills in Antarctica (about 50 m below sea level). There are lower places but they are full of ice and not accessable. The lowest part of Lake Eyre is about 16 m BSL. But all this has nothing to do with the carbon tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
And we cant go nuke as we no longer run the uni courses to supply the engineers we cold import some russian or chinese ones though:wasntme:
no need to import them, they are already here, the Russians own the local Cat house and the Chinese have a cleaning franchise.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE BOOGER
Actually, let's look at the emissions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
A recent, comprehensive study I saw on solar panels (rooftop grid interactive systems) - which included ALL the emissions from manufacturing the panels in either China or USA/Europe, and transportation to Australia, found that the payback (break even) period varied between 0.8 years (VIC - because they have the dirtiest power in OZ) and 1.2 years (TAS - because of all their hydro plants).
However I must apologise for letting facts get in the way of a good rant...
(besides, can I say I find it amusing that someone living in/near a town of 20k+ people and working in a min among thousands of others, not that far from adelaide, claims to be living in the "country"...)
Back on topic, a study by Citi investment group a while back estimated that a carbon tax of $10-20/tonne would have little or no impact on most businesses, and a level of $50/tonne or higher would be required to actually make a difference (i.e. tip the balance in favour of renewables).
It seems that, although I'm a self-funded retiree, I won't get any assistance because I don't have a health card or a pension card nor am I of pensionable age - yet.
Personally, I don't care if we run out of oil in 20 years - I'll probably be dead by then.
Thats interesting. I understand the studies from one of the major banks has also found that the carbon tax will actually be better for the economy, but they have not released that information for political reasons. This also came via a staunch Lib supporter.Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
there are a few reports like this about, all done my thouse with big brains and no politics.
as per my post beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
in 1900, 82% of working Australian mails were involved in some way with the production of food. today it is about 3.5%
the world has changed and economy's will continue to change.
in 1900 the majority of the governments income was from import and export duties. by 1950 in was income tax. by 2015 income tax will be the bottom 3 or 4th income stream for the government.
One of my clients / suppliers wants to put 400kw solar array on their roof in Moorabbin. Total cost to them is $8,000,000 inc gst and install. They are more than happy to pay for it in cash (bastards) or finance it over 7 years (the repayments are less than power generated @ $0.14/Kw/h) the local council (kingston) want to advertise this as a step in the right direction and have granted the permits at no cost, the vic gov't will give them funding for the environmental impact study. the power distributor has agreed to not charge for the local network upgrade if they lock the purchase at @ $0.11c/Kw/h or are willing to give more if they pay for the upgrade (maths are still out but a locked price seems the better way to go for 5 years)
As it is a power generator above 100kw it needs federal approval.
DENIED, reason given. as most of the power is exported the influx of LGC's (like REC's/STC's but work on actual rather than potential energy created) does not fit into current renewable strategy, make it less than 100kw or larger than 5Mw.
I am working on "renting" their roof space at the cost of the output if they supply the system. Ie we have 4x rental agreements on the property.
WTF are you trying to charge a tax when someone wants to be carbon negative, has the money and resources to supply a large amount energy to an industrial area, but because they don't know where it sits in the LRET, SRET, it won't be allowed (yet), the ORER power station dep't are helping get it through and have been excellent with the process thus far. But have no clue as to why they are not allowed to approve it.
Now a Question for the sockless, vegetarians with stinky f**ts.
Carbon tax, I like bubbles in my Coca Cola, I think BOC or Air Liquide supplied it, so do they get credits for capturing it or do i get charged for releasing it??
RANT by MB, Agree with the principle of pollution charges, but Co2 and all the BS that goes with it, get <[EXPLETIVE/DELETED]>
put on some socks, bathe and go cook me a COW. :twisted:
milk and hamburgers will end up costing a lot more, cows fart a lot of methane, so the dairy and beef industry will have to pay.
I guess you missed the part where he said lowest point in AUSTRALIA.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlB
Australia and Antarctica are two difference places...in case you didn't realise.
If you think the Australia Antarctic Territory counts then you're clearly splitting hairs and trolling :p