+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: General Discussions (/thread-4803.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
Re: General Discussions - LP - 04-09-2022
(04-08-2022, 11:27 AM)DJC date Wrote:$2.8 billion for renewable energy, including the “clean coal” allocation.It's very difficult to debate those claims because the reall world figures are so hard to find, but those big dollar figures that talk about subsidies in the billion$ are pretty bogus.
Renewable energy amounted to 32.5% of electricity generated in 2021 so, even discounting the “clean coal” scam, taxpayers are shelling out more to keep the coal-fired power stations going. Even with that significant assistance, energy companies are bailing out of coal plants because there’s no money to be made.
I believe the inflated figures use the IMF/WTO definitions of a subsidy, which includes things like the emissions and energy consumed in traffic and traffic jams as a fossil fuel subsidy. Petrol and LPG are counted on top of oil and natural gas, but petrol and LPG are derived from natural gas and oil so that is artificially exacerbating the figure.
I went looking for real figures and it turns out it's quite hard to find. Even for literate economists like professors from ANU, Melbourne and Sydney Universities. The Unis were engage as a CRC to try and establish the true dollar$ in the energy debate, and after more than a year of research they all reported that most likely the real world subsidies totalled below $1B, in fact they reported the most likely value was less than $500M. They didn't agree on the figure, some claimed as low as $300M and others as high as $1B, but it was clear $10B was a fantasy.
I crossed checked this with someone I know who just so happens to be one of our Deputy Commissioners for Taxation, they really do have all the numbers. While they couldn't tell me the specific figures, they told me a good measure of the level of bullcrap was that "all industry and research subsidies" for the same period totalled just over $12B dollars, so the claims of $10B for just one segment of industry it seems is utter bullcrap!
Fwiw, it seems the UNs rock throwing at Australia uses the IMF/WTO definitions, and claims our derided "Clean Coal" R&D budget in total is more than what the Australian Tax Department claims is our countries entire Industry / Science subsidy spend!
My takeaway on all this is simply the bullcrap politics infiltrates on both sides of the debate, both sides lie through their teeth! It's interesting because it's the old debate about extremes of left or right being circular, if you go far enough to become an extremist in either direction you meet back in the middle.
Re: General Discussions - capcom - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 02:18 AM)LP link Wrote:All the space faring nations are focussed on queuing up to setup permanent Moon bases, they all want access to Helium-3 resources to make fusion reactors a reality. Helium-3 accumulates in surface sediments as a result of the bombardment by cosmic rays, solar radiation and solar wind.
For the time being ... only one nation is capable of that. The United States, and they're miles in front.
Re: General Discussions - ElwoodBlues1 - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 03:56 AM)capcom link Wrote:For the time being ... only one nation is capable of that. The United States, and they're miles in front.The other alternative is Elon Musk who seems to be doing his own thing and has some obsession about having folk live on Mars.
Re: General Discussions - LP - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 03:56 AM)capcom date Wrote:For the time being ... only one nation is capable of that. The United States, and they're miles in front.I think you'll find China is pretty close and has the funds to do it, when we talk about a lunar base people should not be too obsessed with humans on the moon, it might well be robotic.
Re: General Discussions - capcom - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 04:07 AM)ElwoodBlues1 link Wrote:The other alternative is Elon Musk who seems to be doing his own thing and has some obsession about having folk live on Mars.
He's gonna need something on the scale of a Saturn V EB, what with weight, consumables, and crew
And after innumerable unmanned landing missions dating back to 1976 which have exhibited nothing of special interest, Mars is not sustainable or worthy of the cost. I'm afraid (courtesy of speed / time restrictions to other destinations) the moon is as far as we can get. 26,000 mph sounded impressive in 1968, but it's nothing compared to what we need.Re: General Discussions - DJC - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 03:30 AM)LP link Wrote:It's very difficult to debate those claims because the reall world figures are so hard to find, but those big dollar figures that talk about subsidies in the billion$ are pretty bogus.
I believe the inflated figures use the IMF/WTO definitions of a subsidy, which includes things like the emissions and energy consumed in traffic and traffic jams as a fossil fuel subsidy. Petrol and LPG are counted on top of oil and natural gas, but petrol and LPG are derived from natural gas and oil so that is artificially exacerbating the figure.
I went looking for real figures and it turns out it's quite hard to find. Even for literate economists like professors from ANU, Melbourne and Sydney Universities. The Unis were engage as a CRC to try and establish the true dollar$ in the energy debate, and after more than a year of research they all reported that most likely the real world subsidies totalled below $1B, in fact they reported the most likely value was less than $500M. They didn't agree on the figure, some claimed as low as $300M and others as high as $1B, but it was clear $10B was a fantasy.
I crossed checked this with someone I know who just so happens to be one of our Deputy Commissioners for Taxation, they really do have all the numbers. While they couldn't tell me the specific figures, they told me a good measure of the level of bullcrap was that "all industry and research subsidies" for the same period totalled just over $12B dollars, so the claims of $10B for just one segment of industry it seems is utter bullcrap!
Fwiw, it seems the UNs rock throwing at Australia uses the IMF/WTO definitions, and claims our derided "Clean Coal" R&D budget in total is more than what the Australian Tax Department claims is our countries entire Industry / Science subsidy spend!
My takeaway on all this is simply the bullcrap politics infiltrates on both sides of the debate, both sides lie through their teeth! It's interesting because it's the old debate about extremes of left or right being circular, if you go far enough to become an extremist in either direction you meet back in the middle.
The $10.3 billion fossil fuel subsidy is detailed in the Australia Institute research, fully footnoted and referenced:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Faustraliainstitute.org.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F04%2FP1021-Fossil-fuel-subsidies-2020-21-Web.pdf&clen=1064959&chunk=true
The $2.8 billion renewable energy subsidy is an estimate by the Minerals Council of Australia and reported in the Financial Review.
https://www.afr.com/politics/renewable-energy-subsidies-to-top-28b-a-year-up-to-2030-20170313-guwo3t#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20sources%20such%20as,Target%2C%20according%20to%20new%20research.
Re: General Discussions - capcom - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 05:07 AM)LP link Wrote:I think you'll find China is pretty close and has the funds to do it, when we talk about a lunar base people should not be too obsessed with humans on the moon, it might well be robotic.
China's manned presence in space is limited to a small space station in earth orbit, certainly not the moon. Robotic is a waste for what it can gather and return. Ask the Russians.
Re: General Discussions - Thryleon - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 04:07 AM)ElwoodBlues1 link Wrote:The other alternative is Elon Musk who seems to be doing his own thing and has some obsession about having folk live on Mars.
The only reason Mars gets a run is iron ore IMHO. That's why its red.
Re: General Discussions - capcom - 04-09-2022
With over 50 billion metric tons of iron ore alone in Australia, I can't see Earth needing much from Mars
Re: General Discussions - LP - 04-09-2022
(04-09-2022, 05:21 AM)DJC date Wrote:The $10.3 billion fossil fuel subsidy is detailed in the Australia Institute research, fully footnoted and referenced:They're very generous definitions of what subsidies are, and where they come from, that vary subject to political or commercial allegiance.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Faustraliainstitute.org.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F04%2FP1021-Fossil-fuel-subsidies-2020-21-Web.pdf&clen=1064959&chunk=true
The $2.8 billion renewable energy subsidy is an estimate by the Minerals Council of Australia and reported in the Financial Review.
https://www.afr.com/politics/renewable-energy-subsidies-to-top-28b-a-year-up-to-2030-20170313-guwo3t#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20sources%20such%20as,Target%2C%20according%20to%20new%20research.
People can believe what they like and then vote or invest accordingly.