Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

[GekoMan]

[Rattrap]

when you get someone who referes to "howard and his cronies " for the libs but " Mr Rudd" for the labor Pm you realize where their mindset is and don't bother

LOL.
Howard & his cronies earned my ere, Mr Rudd & his cronies are yet to. I won't be holding my breath tho he is a polition at the end of the day.

"ps: Labour would do more good if it encouraged us to install environmentally useful enrgy systems such as solar hot water, PVcells on the roof etc."
I agree completly & just don't understand why they arn't when other countries have done just that successfully. I think the answer my be in the massive amounts of coal we dig out of the ground every year & the wads of cash that goes into govt coffers as a result.

Have u never missed reading a post before Ashore? ffs.

[damian]

Photovoltaics aren't green. It takes more energy to make them than they can ever produce. Something about melting sand...

Lots of so called green things are not enviromentally friendly and all the talk about them is propoganda and hype. Hybrid cars are a good example, and much public transport, but fanatics on both sides never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Now if we could get that $8k rebate for installing wind power at home...

[Sebastiaan56]

Photovoltaics aren't green. It takes more energy to make them than they can ever produce. Something about melting sand...

Lots of so called green things are not enviromentally friendly and all the talk about them is propoganda and hype. Hybrid cars are a good example, and much public transport, but fanatics on both sides never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Now if we could get that $8k rebate for installing wind power at home...

The tool that determines the veracity of these claims is called Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), here are a couple of links on PV LCA's, http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/...apan_10_06.pdf (check the last, summary slide) and http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219 I know it wouldnt cut it in a lot of corporations but the claimed 2-8 years seems OK to me.

As for hybrids and public transport where do you get this opinion from?

I personally believe that this is where we should be going with solar technology http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...htm#transcript as usual the Aussie governemnts are not interested, something about coal revenues... I reckon we should put one on every roof.

[prozac]

Photovoltaics aren't green. It takes more energy to make them than they can ever produce. Something about melting sand...

Lots of so called green things are not enviromentally friendly and all the talk about them is propoganda and hype. Hybrid cars are a good example, and much public transport, but fanatics on both sides never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Now if we could get that $8k rebate for installing wind power at home...

damian has made a good point about energy required to manufacture these "green" alternatives. Toyota's electric car is a good point. I believe that they can never justify environmentally the carbon cost of manufacturing them. Just good marketing.

PV cells have a calculated payback in dollar terms of about 20-25 years on todays Australian electricity charges. In places like Germany the payback is something like 7 years because the government returns the metered supply on a basis of 4:1. Maybe also the carbon cost of manufacturing the PV cells is not justified.

BUT... I believe that if we are not encouraged to install PV cells to feed back into the sytem then the cost both real and in carbon terms of supplying (transporting) electrical energy via wires across the country will become exhorbitant. This is because of the cost of installing new and of maintaining existing systems. With an ever increasing population governments will have antiquated elecrtical supply systems that will need massive amounts of maintenance and upgrade. New supply sytems will need to be installed across the country from wherever new power stations are to be built. It will not be the construction costs of new power stations that is the issue, it will be the cost of transporting the electrical power from the generators to the consumer that will cripple us.

If households become mini power stations then the size and cost of the supply system will not become burdensome. The carbon cost of supplying the material for these systems will far outway the carbon cost of manufacturing PV cells. Installation of PV cells to homes will reduce stress on the electrical wire system and on supply. It would be nice if we had wind generators also but the noise would be excessive in suburban areas.

As to pay-back times, I think as the power generation systems become more loaded the cost of electrical energy will increase tosuch an extent that the PV cells will pay for themselves in much less time than 20 or so years.

prozac

[damian]

That's interesting. It contradicts every other study I've seen on energy payback times for PV's.

I'm prepared to believe I'm wrong, but I'd want to see the sources and ultimately the raw data that presentation is based on. Ditto the second link. I spent way too long in research to believe anyone is without bias. It's really easy to cobble together a convincing demo taylored to suit your sponsors desired outcome. Having said that everything I've read on the subject for years could have been based on flawed analysis or hearsay...

As for hybrids and PT I've done some modelling of my own based on the best sources I could find for trains and busses, and I've read a couple of things on total energy/pollution of hybrids. The numbers for PT are rubbery, depends on many assumptions, but we came up with a figure of 55 people per carraige to offset 1.4 per car. So if there is less than 55 people per carraige on your train it's costing more pollution to move you 1 kilometer than if there were an average 1.4 ppl per car travelling the same distance. Busses are probably a lot better.

Meh.

Edit: I never said PV's are bad. I quite like them and will fit them on my roof in an instant when I move house, but not because I assume they will reduce pollution. What bugs me is extremists on both sides of politics who grab a sliver of information and develop it into a complete world view to suit their POV. The snowball grows until our wonderful government starts spending my taxes in accordance with this myth, whichever myth it happens to be.

[Sebastiaan56]

That's interesting. It contradicts every other study I've seen on energy payback times for PV's.

I'm prepared to believe I'm wrong, but I'd want to see the sources and ultimately the raw data that presentation is based on. Ditto the second link. I spent way too long in research to believe anyone is without bias. It's really easy to cobble together a convincing demo taylored to suit your sponsors desired outcome. Having said that everything I've read on the subject for years could have been based on flawed analysis or hearsay...

As for hybrids and PT I've done some modelling of my own based on the best sources I could find for trains and busses, and I've read a couple of things on total energy/pollution of hybrids. The numbers for PT are rubbery, depends on many assumptions, but we came up with a figure of 55 people per carraige to offset 1.4 per car. So if there is less than 55 people per carraige on your train it's costing more pollution to move you 1 kilometer than if there were an average 1.4 ppl per car travelling the same distance. Busses are probably a lot better.

Meh.

Edit: I never said PV's are bad. I quite like them and will fit them on my roof in an instant when I move house, but not because I assume they will reduce pollution. What bugs me is extremists on both sides of politics who grab a sliver of information and develop it into a complete world view to suit their POV. The snowball grows until our wonderful government starts spending my taxes in accordance with this myth, whichever myth it happens to be.

I though that article was interesting as well. Technology does move on so Im sure its what you buy and what methodology you use. Personally I think solar/steam combinations are the future but Im not sure there is the political will as the donations still come from carbon and nuclear based suppliers. Hot water can be stored, this was always the major (realistic) objection to PV.

I agree about the public transport, all of those trains running throughout the night with less than 20 people, major waste of all kinds of resources. Ive driven a Prius for 6 years now (Im on my second) and even with daily motorway driving I average 5.2l / 100km. It is the shop car so I mainly use it as a ute. Service costs $200 every 10k, it really has saved money over the last six months.

Im a big fan of the science show as they do have regular technology updates.

[damian]

You turn your prius over every 3-5 years ? What about the battery change ? that kicks in at 5 years or something doesn't it ? have you had a quote ?

I believe the diesel golf gets similar economy to the prius. Even with diesel at current prices a friend with one is laughing all the way to the bank.

I really like mirror arrays. Simple, well understood, long life, as you say storable for base load. I haven't found any downside to them and of course australia isn't short of sunny plains. As you say no big money behind them to lobby (bribe) the government.

A chap from the PV industry on Alan Cohla (sp?) few weeks back made an interesting point. The coal fired industry is heavily subsidised in Australia, the PV and other alternative industries really aren't. He was actually quite right in asking for a level playing field. They often aren't and such complaints are often a way of beating your drum, but this chap was actually correct.

[Eastie]

When they put forward a system that hits everyone fairly and squarely between the eyes I will support it. The current concept is to hit a relatively small number hard, sit back and see what happens. In gold for intance most mines are predicted to close operations and focus offshore due to margin errosion of such a scheme and there will likely be little investment in any further exploration..Nickel wouldn't be far behind. Ramp this across a number of heavy industries the support the economy and the picture becomes a little clearer. Dont expect to hit industry and not have them hit back.

[Sebastiaan56]

You turn your prius over every 3-5 years ? What about the battery change ? that kicks in at 5 years or something doesn't it ? have you had a quote ?

Nah the first Prius went when I got made redundant, the second one is almost 4 years old. No battery issues yet but I figure that five years is a long time in battery technology (think Moore's Law) and I thought it was eight years, btw heard of Toyota motors lasting 350,000 km so Im not that worried,

A chap from the PV industry on Alan Cohla (sp?) few weeks back made an interesting point. The coal fired industry is heavily subsidised in Australia, the PV and other alternative industries really aren't. He was actually quite right in asking for a level playing field. They often aren't and such complaints are often a way of beating your drum, but this chap was actually correct.

Ah yes the crunch, pollies have to pay the piper, the unions for Labour or big business for the Libs. One day we will have a democracy, but thats another conversation.

[nt900]

You turn your prius over every 3-5 years ? What about the battery change ? that kicks in at 5 years or something doesn't it ? have you had a quote ?

I believe the diesel golf gets similar economy to the prius. Even with diesel at current prices a friend with one is laughing all the way to the bank.

I really like mirror arrays. Simple, well understood, long life, as you say storable for base load. I haven't found any downside to them and of course australia isn't short of sunny plains. As you say no big money behind them to lobby (bribe) the government.

A chap from the PV industry on Alan Cohla (sp?) few weeks back made an interesting point. The coal fired industry is heavily subsidised in Australia, the PV and other alternative industries really aren't. He was actually quite right in asking for a level playing field. They often aren't and such complaints are often a way of beating your drum, but this chap was actually correct.

My Prius more than 5 years old and battery likely to last another 5 years I guess.

The fuel economy is great. Unlike other 'eco' cars like small turbo-diesels, it's not just about saving fuel, but reducing emissions as well. I feel positively prehistoric sitting at the lights in a conventional vehicle burning fuel and pumping out emissions. Eve when the car is driving the petrol motor probably only runs 50% of the time. Eg. initial take off, coasting, reducing speed - all done with the motor off, no fuel burning and no emissions.

damian has made a good point about energy required to manufacture these "green" alternatives. Toyota's electric car is a good point. I believe that they can never justify environmentally the carbon cost of manufacturing them. Just good marketing.

Hi Prozac - What source are you quoting?

[damian]

You have added to a fairly old thread, but anyway...

Have a look online about the prious. If your thinking about the enviromental impact of any product you need to do a holistic analysis, manufacture, disposal as well as use. A prious is a wonderful marketing sucess, but it's not particularly enviromentally sound. The pollution load in making and transporting teh raw materials for the batteries for example is signifigant.

[nt900]

You have added to a fairly old thread, but anyway...

Have a look online about the prious. If your thinking about the enviromental impact of any product you need to do a holistic analysis, manufacture, disposal as well as use. A prious is a wonderful marketing sucess, but it's not particularly enviromentally sound. The pollution load in making and transporting teh raw materials for the batteries for example is signifigant.

I totally agree about whole of life cycle analysis. I am just concerned that people 'quote' information but don't point to the sources.

There is obviously an impact in making any component for a vehicle. But, do the batteries require more resources in their product life cycle versus the fuel product life cycle (that is the equivalent amount of fuel saved by operating the Prius)?

I don't know the answer to this, but I would love to see a reputable authorities analysis to find out.

[GekoMan]

The majority of these environmental evaluations are false for a simple reason. They tend to assume that the conversion of carbon from a solid or liquid form into a gas form is bad for the environment. This is a false assumption for two main reasons:
(a) This assumption isn't supported by the known scientific facts.
(b) "bad for the environment" means bad for life. However current projections of the climate are good for most life forms. An ice age would be an example of a bad environment.

[nt900]

The majority of these environmental evaluations are false for a simple reason. They tend to assume that the conversion of carbon from a solid or liquid form into a gas form is bad for the environment. This is a false assumption for two main reasons:
(a) This assumption isn't supported by the known scientific facts.
(b) "bad for the environment" means bad for life. However current projections of the climate are good for most life forms. An ice age would be an example of a bad environment.

I am not sure the evaluations are false, but you raise an interesting point: "man and other components of the ecosystem he needs to survive and prosper" versus "the other life forms and the ecosystem he needs to survive and prosper".

I know which one will get the popular vote.

What do you mean by "This assumption isn't supported by the known scientific facts."? I think there are plenty of facts behind the assumption 'bad for the environment' - but as you point out, it comes down to perspective on man vs. everything else.

Personally, I would like both man and everything else to survive and prosper. I feel like John Lennon - "Imagine all the ........." etc