The Carbon Tax is akin to what
might be termed
in that it most definitely has
a trickle down effect!
Recently Martin Ferguson, the Government’s Energy Minister bragged “that solar has delivered a cost and demand benefit for all electricity users.” So can anyone tell me why householders are being hit with electricity price hikes when the cost of wholesale electricity is down by 50% and demand down by 5%? It seems a fair question to me.
The Australian Solar Energy Society’s Chief Executive John Grimes said householders have a right to know why their bills are going up when the price of electricity is going down.
“We are hearing a lot about the need to spend $100 billion on the grid, but not much detail on what we are getting for this money.”
“The current plans are to rebuild and extend what we have now, a horse and buggy era grid, when we should be creating a new smart grid that will better accommodate clean energy sources and take us into the next 100 years”, said Grimes.
Just about every house holder who does NOT have solar panels affixed to their dwelling is cringing at the forthcoming promised electricity price hike. And it is coming – across all states and territories in Australia.
Tasmanians are particularly curious as to why they will be hit with a substantial price hike when their electricity is HYDRO Generated.
Premier Lara Giddings is bragging that Tasmanians are ONLY going to be hit with a 10.5% price hike – where as NSW and South Australia is facing an 18% price hike. Smarmily she says Tasmanians are better off as — “more than half of that is the carbon tax of which people are being compensated for”.
“So in reality it’s about a 4% increase for Tasmanians.”
Hydro Tasmania will use its carbon tax windfall to fund the measure.
The Opposition says Tasmanians cannot afford to pay the latest rise.
Spokesman Matthew Groom says the Government could shield Tasmanians from paying for the carbon tax by using $34 million of the expected carbon tax windfall.
“This power price increase is more than Tasmanian can cope with,” he said.
“Under the Tasmanian Liberals, Tasmanian will pay about $125 less because of our policy of carbon tax-free power.” (The average Tasmanian power bill is set to rise $240, under electricity price changes approved to start next month.)
So why, even if Tasmanians were exempt from the Carbon Tax portion (which they are not), would they still be expected to pay a price hike of $215.00.? Power in Tasmania is water generated…… free, gratis, a gift from above.
Now to the Carbon Tax Itself:
The Federal government believes the average impact of pricing carbon to be $3.30 per week on the average weekly power bill. Recently announced price increase suggests this number is way below the mark.
Carbon taxes are going to have different impacts across the country, as each state generates its power from different carbon intensity sources. Tasmania, with its abundant hydro will be affected least, Victoria, with its heavy reliance on brown coal, the most.
Also each state has secondary energy efficiency programs with varying price impacts.
The 300 pound gorilla in the room is of course the carbon tax. But it has a few key elements that need to be covered before you can get your head around the concept.
From 1st July this year about 500 companies in Australia will pay a direct tax of $23 for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit. This price will increase 2.5 per cent per annum, until 2015, when a market based scheme kicks in. It is interesting to note that the current market price in the EU is $7.60 per tonne.
The biggest carbon emitters include electricity generators (wholesalers) but they also include big resource companies and the manufacturer of high energy intensive products such as steel, aluminium and paper. As electricity is publicly traded, the costs of the tax will be passed directly onto electricity retailers and larger direct commercial customers.
So the carbon tax will be directly passed to you, the consumer, via your electricity bill. But it will also be as passed on via a multitude of small passed on costs that will flow through the economy. From the price of milk to council rates.
Household Solar Energy
Australia (The Federal Government) has been giving special rebates and power rates to those who can afford and install home solar electricity.
Solar schemes are funded by feed-in tariffs where a ‘surge charge’ is added to everyone’s power bill. The Australian has reported that this is adding about $140 per year to cost of household power:
SUBSIDIES for rooftop solar panels will cost consumers about $2.3 billion over the next year as the combination of a federal government solar subsidy program and state government feed-in tariffs add about $140 a year to household power bills…..
But who benefits from this scheme?
To have a rooftop solar panel you need to own a rooftop, this rules out renters or people whom own apartments; these are generally the poorer members of our community. But these are the very people who through feed in tariffs will be funding new solar panels and ridiculously high prices for excess solar power fed back into the grid for those who are fortunate enough to own a house.
And the difference to global temperatures for making the poor poorer…ZERO!
Of course all this costs money – from the government, who gets if from the tax payer – that is you and I! But is it worth it? And I don’t simply mean in a financial way either. The Federal Government has been heard often to praise what is happening in Europe and in particular – Germany with regards to Solar as renewable green energy.
In February 2012 I came across an article which really should have caused our Federal Government to stand up and take notice, but I figure they were too busy patting each other on the back – to notice what was happening in Germany.
One of the world’s biggest green-energy public-policy experiments is coming to a bitter end in Germany, with important lessons for policymakers elsewhere. Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies – totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University – to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
There is a fundamental problem with subsidizing inefficient green technology: it is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill. According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”
Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles), about 2.6% of the Sahara Desert.
Unfortunately, Germany – like most of the world – is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed. In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all.
Now to my way of thinking, in Australia, if the entire “Red Centre” was turned into a giant Solar Park, capturing sunshine every day and generating electricity, then perhaps we would be able to service a large part of the country. But this just isn’t going to happen, and many parts of Australia, particularly in the winter do not receive sufficient sunshine to generate supplies for all who require it. Then there is the problem of night-time, when NO electricity can be made and stored.
Frankly I cannot see what the problem is with using the minerals we have in abundance already within Australia. As the early article from Germany said: “Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels”. This turn to green, clean and so-called renewable energy is nothing short of government (at the local level) and United Nations (at the world level) manipulation.
We have just been advised that there will be no shortage of oils and gas. The Peak Oil scare was just that – a scare tactic.
In March 2012, Citigroup which is the parent company of Citi Bank and Citi Futures, published a report titled “North America, the New Middle East?” What is suspenseful about this new research is that oil production in the North America has increased, and will continue to increase extensively in the coming decade. North America as a whole could add over 11-million barrels per day of oil. Added to over 15-million barrels per day in 2010 – would total to almost 27-million barrels per day by 2020-22. The potential increase in supply challenges the notion of “peak oil”, an idea that the world is running out of oil. So where is all this oil coming from?
Abiotic (or abiogenic) Oil: Within the Earth’s mantle hydrocarbons such as elemental carbon, carbon dioxide, and carbonates exists. The abiotic design shows the full suite of hydrocarbons found in petroleum can be generated in the mantle by abiogenic processes, and these hydrocarbons can migrate out of the mantle into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.
In a recent issue from the journal ‘Nature’, astronomers show that an organic substance commonly found throughout the Universe contains a mixture of aromatic (ring-like) and aliphatic (chain-like) components. The compounds are so complex that their chemical structures resemble those of coal and petroleum.
Since coal and oil are remnants of ancient life, this type of organic matter was thought to arise only from living organisms. The team’s discovery suggests that complex organic compounds can be synthesized in space even when no life forms are present.
Citigroups Analysis: The increase in liquid growth and the shale-oil revolution is challenging the concept of peak oil. The belief that global oil production has peaked, or is on the cusp of doing so, has underpinned much of crude oil’s decade-long rally. The belief was bolstered by the repeated failure of supply to live up to the optimistic forecasts put forward by various governmental and international energy agencies.
It just maybe possible that our oil reserves are in fact a renewable resource…… and that most certainly will put as they say The Cat Among the Pigeons!
If there is no pillaging and plundering and raping of finite resources such as the oil and gas we use currently, then there will be no need to stop mining and drilling and burning of it to save the planet.
The United Nations and all the Agenda 21 fanatics will have no need to control the world, its future and the generations to come – to protect them from themselves. With good local management – NOT world controlled management as is currently planned with Sustainable Development, we can live and prosper and continue to function and grow.
Until people wake up and realise that they are being used as pawns in a One World Order Plan, they will continue to be led by the nose, into believing this is all for the betterment of planet earth. In fact it is really all for the betterment of the soon to be implemented One World Government – unelected and dictatorial. Say ‘goodbye’ to National Sovereignty!
“All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” Edmund Burke