La Gillard has finally completed the gestation of one of the less normal creations, fathered by Bob Brown, a Green Senator in the Australian Federal Parliament.

This Carbon Tax is stated to be the precursor to an Emissions Trading Scheme, which will come into effect in another three years.

Currently the tax is a levy on each ton of carbon produced by each of 500 manufacturers/ producers of serious emissions. It does not include domestic cars or vans (petrol-driven), and there are tax benefits for many Australians to offset the anticipated rise in prices that will come with the 500 recovering the costs of the tax from the people further down the line.

Thus a power station that buys coal from a local source will have to pay the mine a premium to cover the miner's tax liability. Whether he can offset this against his liability when burning the coal, I do not know. But obviously electricity will go up, either through one tax liability, or two. A steel mill will also burn coal in the firing process, as well as using large quantities of electricity. So looks like there'll be a big rise in steel prices in Oz. How much do they produce, and will it now be cheaper to import?

Transport will be hit later. Currently there is a deferment for trucks - when the tax comes in I would like to see the engine capacity that will be subject to tax.

OK. That's the tax. How will this reduce pollution? As far as I can see - it will not. All costs will be passed on to Joe Public. There is no real incentive here for the heavy polluters to change their ways.

I would have thought that encouraging these polluters to invest in new technology, by underwriting some R&D by the polluters, would have been included. But no, instead the government will set up a large department (billions of dollars) within the government, staffed by 'experts', to study various scenarios.

Now I'm a practical engineer and I have yet to see a government think tank produce anything that works, without it first having to be taken into the private sector and be worked upon by practical engineers.

Also we have the Australian horror of nuclear power. They have the uranium, they mine the uranium, they sell the uranium abroad, but they won't use the bloody stuff. Now this is not clever - in fact it's plain stupid. I am not talking about using it in the current system of nuclear plants, where one has to knock electrons off the basic material to make it highly radio-active, then use it in plants that will produce plutonium so you can have nuclear weapons. No - I'm talking about thorium/molten salt reactors, where you use thorium fluoride and uranium flouride in a molten state and derive heat, and therefore power, from the consequent reactions. These cannot produce nuclear weapons (well, they can, but it's dam_n difficult and not at all cheap) so the governments of the world are not interested. The theory has been around as long as the current nuclear power plants, but not been supported by a single government. It is far safer than the current systems - Fukushima could not have happened / Chernobyl could not have happened with a thorium molten salt design.

Why doesn't Australia look at this as a solution to their domestic pollution, rather than spend enormous sums of money on trying to get wind and solar power to cover their needs - 'cos they never will.

This is just a few thoughts I have put up for discussion - I'm not sure myself if an ETS is a good thing or not. I feel it will not work in these days of hard-headed commercial thinking, where investment has to show quick profits.

I don't have an answer for you. You presented good points and in a very readable way.

I had tended to suspect that an ETS might be a good thing....but you have me thinking now.

I don't have an answer for you. You presented good points and in a very readable way.

I had tended to suspect that an ETS might be a good thing....but you have me thinking now.

That's why I put it up. I don't know the answers either.

But here in Vietnam we are still building many power plants. I am on the way to finishing a 750MW gas-fired plant now, will move to one roughly the same size, but coal-fired in the New Year. And that is only the first stage of three plants to be built on one site. They are not using lignite (brown coal) but are still not very clean. And will represent about twice the Hazelwood size when all stages are complete - with equivalent pollution. And there are maybe thirty power plants of various sizes planned over the next ten years, as VN builds towards it's targets for industrialisation and agricultural stuff such as irrigation.

VN has a population of around 85 million, as against Oz's 28 million (I think), but it is a far smaller area, especially with the mountainous regions and forests. So the population live close to all these polluters and can do nothing about it. We obviously have scrubbers and so on in the coal-fired plants, to get rid of the solid carbon (soot) but that doesn't help in gas-fired stations, where CO2 is the big pollutant. Also CO2 of course in coal-fired plants, you just can't get away from it.

Good year this year - three rice crops. The third is nearing harvesting and that means a lot of carbon has been put into growing the rice. But after harvesting the stubble will be burnt, so all the good work has been for naught.

I've only seen secondhand reports of exactly how the carbon tax will work; I hope it will. Julia Gillard (and Bob Brown) have at least grasped the bull by the horns and tried to take action to reduce carbon emissions. Most countries just talk, but take no action. I hope that their initiative is successful, because it may encourage other countries to do something.

I have no technical knowledge about the latest developments in nuclear technology but, like most laymen, the very thought of it terrifies me

Many years ago, I was given twenty minutes' warning to give a leading speech at an environmental conference in Hong Kong (I was at that time working largely in nature conservation)... in the audience were 50 members of the American Nuclear Society, including the first man to enter Three Mile Island after the accident. It was an interesting experience, and I think I convinced them that it was not only making nuclear energy safe that mattered, but convincing the general public that it was safe. After Fukushima, that's even more important, as the public worldwide will demand more and more carbon-emitting power stations to replace the older nuclear plants.

Thorium molten salt reaction is safe.

Safer than almost all forms of generating power. But it will be costly to get a commercial plant of sufficient size to interest major producers. After the first one is up and running, it will develop quickly, but to gamble a few billion dollars on the first one needs a wealthy, visionary investor. It will work, it has worked on test models.

Here is the standard Wikipedia article and one that I had not previously seen, stating that China are looking seriously at this technique.

http://www.search-results.com/web?l=dis&o=15915&q=Thorium+molten+salt&atb=sysid%3D2%3Aappid%3D119%3Auid%3D1ee1333e8427213d%3Auc%3D1299076374%3Aq%3DThorium+molten+salt%3Asrc%3Dieb%3Ao%3D15915

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/china-has-started-thorium-molten-salt.html

Hurrah for China.

I have just been watching Julia Gillard on Q&A on Australia Network.

How I do dislike this woman!!

She was on the programme for about half-an-hour and answered not one of the questions directly.

The only facts I drew from the session was that Australia will save 160 million tonnes of carbon (I assume in a year) (but maybe not )

So, with around 28 million Aussies, producing 24 tonnes per head per annum (that's 700 million tonnes, give or take) that's around 20-25% saving.

But I'm really not sure if that 160 mill is over one year or is the target saving by 2020 or what. Maybe someone can check.

But I still cannot see HOW this saving comes about. If I am a power distributor, I have a list of power producers (power stations) and their MWH (megawatt-hour) unit price. I take onto the grid the cheapest first, then if I need more power, the next cheapest. And so on up to the most expensive.

Now in most cases hydro is the cheapest, coal-fired next and gas-fired the most expensive. Renewables are in a class of their own, even with their 20% and more of subsidy (Europe - don't know about Oz). The grid operator/distributor only takes these because he too gets a subsidy. And he doesn't take them first, believe me.

Taxing coal (and gas)-fired plants will put up the cost to the grid operator, who will pass on the additions to the customers, but you'll not really notice it, because you are charged an overall unit price, whatever the source of the power.

But JG said nothing about how the carbon tax will affect these commercial practices - she probably doesn't even know the ins-and-outs of the business.

Sorry I missed that programme, HB. I'm no fan of JG either. But I think it's important to take the initiative to do something about carbon emissions, and that she has done. Maybe it's the wrong way; I'm unable to judge that at this stage... but if we never make mistakes, we'll never make anything.

Sorry I missed that programme, HB. I'm no fan of JG either. But I think it's important to take the initiative to do something about carbon emissions, and that she has done. Maybe it's the wrong way; I'm unable to judge that at this stage... but if we never make mistakes, we'll never make anything.

I'm not against anything that works, when reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

Got rid of Freon and closed that big hole in the ionosphere over the Antarctic - or did it go naturally - or is it still there?

But my problem is that I cannot see this working.

Big Polluter : "Yes, I pump a million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year."

Aussie consumer : "Well, now it'll cost you 28 million dollars a year to do so."

Big Polluter : "No. I've worked out that it would cost me far too much to clean up my factory, so that's out.I thought of passing on the costs to my customers, but some of them told me that they couldn't afford the prices. So I've gone into partnership with a Vietnamese company who can produce my goods at two-thirds of my current costs, including shipping to Australia, so I am closing my business here, except for my sales office, and moving to Da Nang."

Aussie consumer : "But will Australians buy such foreign goods?"

Big Polluter : "They won't realise. My business is supplying parts for Holden cars. You won't buy my parts - you'll by a Holden."

Aussie consumer : "I prefer Ford."

Big Polluter : "I supply them too."

Fair comment, HB, but I would still like to see it given a try. What I'm more afraid of is that Tony Abbott will get into power before the thing really gets into gear... and cancel it. That would be worse than not trying it at all.

What I would like to see is rewards for innovation and reduction of emissions, rather than a blanket tax on all.

A tax will not necessarily encourage manufacturers to clean up their act. It will be a part of their costs, thus will be factored into their pricing. If the equation shows that they can reduce their corporate taxes by introducing a reduction in carbon, and that the cost of such introduction is not higher than the savings, then there is a chance that they will do so. But the first instinct is to pass the burden on to others, either by higher prices or demanding more production from the workers. Or reducing other costs, by reducing the labour force, skimping on systems already in place to maintain the plant, reduce investment in new plant, so on.

What I would like to see is rewards for innovation and reduction of emissions, rather than a blanket tax on all.

....................

That is good. But from where does the money come that pays for those rewards? Surely it should be a tax on the worst offenders.

Actually....I'm sure I read recently that the carbon tax will be used to support solar and other energy initiatives.

What I would like to see is rewards for innovation and reduction of emissions, rather than a blanket tax on all.

....................

That is good. But from where does the money come that pays for those rewards? Surely it should be a tax on the worst offenders.

Actually....I'm sure I read recently that the carbon tax will be used to support solar and other energy initiatives.

Here's an article from today's Daily Torygraph - someone hacking 'Driving Points' Huhne's mobile phone, I assume. Don't need press conferences anymore, just phone your ex-wife.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8633325/Electricity-market-reforms-in-White-Paper-could-force-companies-to-leave-UK.html

Part of the article quoted here:

John Cridland, director-general of the CBI, said: "Some energy-intensive industries are already on a knife-edge, and without help to shield them from new measures like the carbon floor price, they could struggle to stay in the UK."

Energy companies welcomed the introduction of "feed-in tariffs", which ensure generators of low-carbon electricity receive an agreed price. These have been tweaked so generators pay money back to the Government if wholesale electricity prices exceed the agreed price point.

Dorothy Thompson, chief executive of Drax, the giant coal-fired power station, said this system "provides the lowest-cost solution for the consumer and necessary stability for investors".

There are all the usual nutters making comments below the article, including me, but again a few valid points emerge from the stinking swamp of exotic opinions expressed in the DT.

That is good. But from where does the money come that pays for those rewards? Surely it should be a tax on the worst offenders.

Actually....I'm sure I read recently that the carbon tax will be used to support solar and other energy initiatives.

I'm not talking about solar / wind / tidal / wave motion or any of these other 'fill-in' proposals. They will not be providers of major energy (say over 30%) for decades. I am thinking of ways to clean-up existing generation plants. Victoria's brown coal is a major pollution candidate - I used to drive around Silesia, the South-East corner of Germany (then East Germany), South-West Poland and the top-end of Czechoslovakia, as it was. This was a desert - the pollution had killed-off all the trees, everything was a yellow-brown or deep brown. Horrible. I was also in Slovakia, around Banska Bistrice when the Russians had an army base there. There were also cement works and these puffed out coal fumes from the kilns, plus cement dust from the manufacturing. The town should have been a showplace of Hapsburg architecture, because under the inches of grime was a beautiful town, preserved from the eighteen hundreds. But you could see nothing, BROWN COAL!!!

Please don't fall for the Greenies hymn about renewables. It is not currently possible to generate sufficient electricity from renewables to maintain the current lifestyle of Zimbabwe, let alone Australia. The day may come, when sufficient materials are mined to produce the 400 billion (my guess) solar cells, sixteen million (my guess) wind turbines, plus all the tidal and wave-form generators on Surfer's Paradise, the barricades across the Bass Strait, Bondi and every other beach in Oz, to provide the power for three aluminium smelters.

But that day is a long way away.

Bob Brown and his cohorts are pushing Australia into a path from which it will be difficult to extricate oneself. And without the electorate endorsing such actions. And without him accepting any responsibility when it all goes pear-shaped.

For small island communities in the Pacific wind and wave power may be enough. But not for countries that claim major industrial and manufacturing status.

Next - I cannot give you a link, as I only have hardcopy - but it is a Reuters article in today's VietNam News.

Japan's Softbank, their third largest mobile carrier, is to build a solar plant on Hokkaido.

They are hoping to build ten plants in Japan, each with a capacity of 20MW. A Nikkei report in May said they would cost about US$ 100 million each.

I am currently building a gas-fired plant of 750MW capacity for US$ 750 million.

Therefore, whereas mine costs a million dollars per megawatt to build, the solar station costs 5 million per megawatt. Gas-fired consumes gas, so that's an extra cost, but it will not be four times the value of the plant.

A gas-fired power station gives power when you want it, as long as it is running. The output can be adjusted to the grid operator's needs.

A solar power station generates power when there is sufficient light, then you have to store the surplus, if any, for other times, like when it is dark. This is OK for the panel on top of a streetlight, hat only has to support one luminaire (low wattage) for a few hours. But a 20MW station? Needs a lot of storage capacity of one sort or another.

Now you will note that Softbank is talking about 10 x 20MW stations. Thus 200MW. In the last five years I have built 3 x 750MW in south VietNam, I have colleagues working on a 1,000MW station and other colleagues around the country working on smaller stations. There is a big development at Long Phu, near Can Tho at the mouth of the Mekong that will eventually be 2,000MW of coal-fired power (about double Hazelwood in Victoria, I believe). So 6,000MW that I know of, in recent development in a poor ASEAN country. What is Softbank's investment in these terms - merely a drop in the ocean. And that is what these alternative energy sources can offer - a cupful of power when a very large bucket is needed.

Next - I cannot give you a link, as I only have hardcopy - but it is a Reuters article in today's VietNam News.

Japan's Softbank, their third largest mobile carrier, is to build a solar plant on Hokkaido.

They are hoping to build ten plants in Japan, each with a capacity of 20MW. A Nikkei report in May said they would cost about US$ 100 million each.

I am currently building a gas-fired plant of 750MW capacity for US$ 750 million.

Therefore, whereas mine costs a million dollars per megawatt to build, the solar station costs 5 million per megawatt. Gas-fired consumes gas, so that's an extra cost, but it will not be four times the value of the plant.

A gas-fired power station gives power when you want it, as long as it is running. The output can be adjusted to the grid operator's needs.

A solar power station generates power when there is sufficient light, then you have to store the surplus, if any, for other times, like when it is dark. This is OK for the panel on top of a streetlight, hat only has to support one luminaire (low wattage) for a few hours. But a 20MW station? Needs a lot of storage capacity of one sort or another.

Now you will note that Softbank is talking about 10 x 20MW stations. Thus 200MW. In the last five years I have built 3 x 750MW in south VietNam, I have colleagues working on a 1,000MW station and other colleagues around the country working on smaller stations. There is a big development at Long Phu, near Can Tho at the mouth of the Mekong that will eventually be 2,000MW of coal-fired power (about double Hazelwood in Victoria, I believe). So 6,000MW that I know of, in recent development in a poor ASEAN country. What is Softbank's investment in these terms - merely a drop in the ocean. And that is what these alternative energy sources can offer - a cupful of power when a very large bucket is needed.

I agree with your reasoning, and have the same thoughts with windpower.

Imagine the massive and expensive storage facilities required, not mentioned.

Here in NZ the prevailing westerlies are being harnessed, OK, but nowhere is there any mention of what happens when there is no wind.

I guess it will fall back on gas and hydro generation.

Next - I cannot give you a link, as I only have hardcopy - but it is a Reuters article in today's VietNam News.

Japan's Softbank, their third largest mobile carrier, is to build a solar plant on Hokkaido.

They are hoping to build ten plants in Japan, each with a capacity of 20MW. A Nikkei report in May said they would cost about US$ 100 million each.

I am currently building a gas-fired plant of 750MW capacity for US$ 750 million.

Therefore, whereas mine costs a million dollars per megawatt to build, the solar station costs 5 million per megawatt. Gas-fired consumes gas, so that's an extra cost, but it will not be four times the value of the plant.

A gas-fired power station gives power when you want it, as long as it is running. The output can be adjusted to the grid operator's needs.

A solar power station generates power when there is sufficient light, then you have to store the surplus, if any, for other times, like when it is dark. This is OK for the panel on top of a streetlight, hat only has to support one luminaire (low wattage) for a few hours. But a 20MW station? Needs a lot of storage capacity of one sort or another.

Now you will note that Softbank is talking about 10 x 20MW stations. Thus 200MW. In the last five years I have built 3 x 750MW in south VietNam, I have colleagues working on a 1,000MW station and other colleagues around the country working on smaller stations. There is a big development at Long Phu, near Can Tho at the mouth of the Mekong that will eventually be 2,000MW of coal-fired power (about double Hazelwood in Victoria, I believe). So 6,000MW that I know of, in recent development in a poor ASEAN country. What is Softbank's investment in these terms - merely a drop in the ocean. And that is what these alternative energy sources can offer - a cupful of power when a very large bucket is needed.

I agree with your reasoning, and have the same thoughts with windpower.

Imagine the massive and expensive storage facilities required, not mentioned.

Here in NZ the prevailing westerlies are being harnessed, OK, but nowhere is there any mention of what happens when there is no wind.

I guess it will fall back on gas and hydro generation.

In Kiwiland you also have geothermal opportunities, as does Iceland.

This is 24-hour production, can be controlled, but some of my NZ colleagues tell me there are special problems with it that make it less financially interesting than coal. I'm no expert on geothermal power generation, but I would have thought you guys would be looking carefully at this. Smallish population, you should be able to manage medium-sized plants. Or are the hot springs, etc., too far from populated areas?

Next - I cannot give you a link, as I only have hardcopy - but it is a Reuters article in today's VietNam News.

Japan's Softbank, their third largest mobile carrier, is to build a solar plant on Hokkaido.

They are hoping to build ten plants in Japan, each with a capacity of 20MW. A Nikkei report in May said they would cost about US$ 100 million each.

I am currently building a gas-fired plant of 750MW capacity for US$ 750 million.

Therefore, whereas mine costs a million dollars per megawatt to build, the solar station costs 5 million per megawatt. Gas-fired consumes gas, so that's an extra cost, but it will not be four times the value of the plant.

A gas-fired power station gives power when you want it, as long as it is running. The output can be adjusted to the grid operator's needs.

A solar power station generates power when there is sufficient light, then you have to store the surplus, if any, for other times, like when it is dark. This is OK for the panel on top of a streetlight, hat only has to support one luminaire (low wattage) for a few hours. But a 20MW station? Needs a lot of storage capacity of one sort or another.

Now you will note that Softbank is talking about 10 x 20MW stations. Thus 200MW. In the last five years I have built 3 x 750MW in south VietNam, I have colleagues working on a 1,000MW station and other colleagues around the country working on smaller stations. There is a big development at Long Phu, near Can Tho at the mouth of the Mekong that will eventually be 2,000MW of coal-fired power (about double Hazelwood in Victoria, I believe). So 6,000MW that I know of, in recent development in a poor ASEAN country. What is Softbank's investment in these terms - merely a drop in the ocean. And that is what these alternative energy sources can offer - a cupful of power when a very large bucket is needed.

I agree with your reasoning, and have the same thoughts with windpower.

Imagine the massive and expensive storage facilities required, not mentioned.

Here in NZ the prevailing westerlies are being harnessed, OK, but nowhere is there any mention of what happens when there is no wind.

I guess it will fall back on gas and hydro generation.

In Kiwiland you also have geothermal opportunities, as does Iceland.

This is 24-hour production, can be controlled, but some of my NZ colleagues tell me there are special problems with it that make it less financially interesting than coal. I'm no expert on geothermal power generation, but I would have thought you guys would be looking carefully at this. Smallish population, you should be able to manage medium-sized plants. Or are the hot springs, etc., too far from populated areas?

I have a vague recollection of watching a doco that stated that America has more geothermal potential than Iceland, Japan, Hungary, Italy and NZ combined.

A cynic would say that big-money (oil) interests would lose, therefore the geothermal energy is not looked at to it's fullest potential.

That cynicism could also apply to everywhere else that has geothermal.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4802

It's from Nov 2008 but talks about what's being done with Low Temperature Geo Thermal Power in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. A quick read. Don't be intimidated by the tiny scroll bar, it's mostly from the comment section.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4802

It's from Nov 2008 but talks about what's being done with Low Temperature Geo Thermal Power in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. A quick read. Don't be intimidated by the tiny scroll bar, it's mostly from the comment section.

Interesting read.

WHY is this technology not being used? Seems to be very cheap 9relatively) to set up too.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4802

It's from Nov 2008 but talks about what's being done with Low Temperature Geo Thermal Power in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. A quick read. Don't be intimidated by the tiny scroll bar, it's mostly from the comment section.

Interesting read.

WHY is this technology not being used? Seems to be very cheap 9relatively) to set up too.

I don't think I've heard of this mentioned among the "green" energy technologies like wind, water and solar. It seems to be an endless supply that doesn't require defacing the landscape like those giant windmills.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4802

It's from Nov 2008 but talks about what's being done with Low Temperature Geo Thermal Power in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. A quick read. Don't be intimidated by the tiny scroll bar, it's mostly from the comment section.

Interesting read.

WHY is this technology not being used? Seems to be very cheap 9relatively) to set up too.

I don't think I've heard of this mentioned among the "green" energy technologies like wind, water and solar. It seems to be an endless supply that doesn't require defacing the landscape like those giant windmills.

I did a quick google......read one report (I have no idea how accurate it is) that suggested that America's geothermal potential from hot dry rock sources could power the world for 30 000 years! No doubt Australia's and NZ's could do something similar, pro rata.

I wonder too, if by releasing the heat to the environment at an accelerated rate (as opposed to what is happening now with gradual release naturally and an occasional volcanoe), what effect it would have (Law of conservation of energy). All that heat is now not sequested in the earth.

I also wonder, from the same angle, if there would eventually be an effect such as fewer volcanic eruptions? A one degree lowering of the mantle temperature may even have an effect on plate tectonics. Who knows?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4802

It's from Nov 2008 but talks about what's being done with Low Temperature Geo Thermal Power in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. A quick read. Don't be intimidated by the tiny scroll bar, it's mostly from the comment section.

Thanks for that. I've passed it on to a couple of my Kiwi friends who may offer sensible input (or not).

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4802

It's from Nov 2008 but talks about what's being done with Low Temperature Geo Thermal Power in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. A quick read. Don't be intimidated by the tiny scroll bar, it's mostly from the comment section.

Thanks for that. I've passed it on to a couple of my Kiwi friends who may offer sensible input (or not).

You have Kiwi friends?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4802

It's from Nov 2008 but talks about what's being done with Low Temperature Geo Thermal Power in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. A quick read. Don't be intimidated by the tiny scroll bar, it's mostly from the comment section.

Interesting read.

WHY is this technology not being used? Seems to be very cheap 9relatively) to set up too.

I don't think I've heard of this mentioned among the "green" energy technologies like wind, water and solar. It seems to be an endless supply that doesn't require defacing the landscape like those giant windmills.

Because the 'green' technologies you mention are highly profitable to new industry. The manufacturers of wind turbines and solar power systems are heavily subsidised by most governments, research is heavily subsidised and the cost of power produced by these methods is costly. The miners of exotic minerals are making a bundle as well.

Geothermal hasn't the glamour of any of that, because it's just the same old power producers heating water to turn turbines - same as nuclear, gas and coal. We are already established, boring old-style technology with no interest in filling politicians pockets in order to get subsidies.

A commentary piece from today's (London) Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8726887/Aussie-blokes-tackle-Carbon-Cate-and-the-eco-warriors.html

Says nothing really, but shows the debate is still going on round the world.