Select to expand quoteRango said..
Yeh ,people became pretty stupid wearing masks all day.Was that correlation or causation.
Are you talking about the medical professionals who wear masks all day?
Us patchers wear masks all day to point where we gotto be clean shaven and we get so sick of just churbing thru filters we sticky tape chux cloths over the filters to try avoid bankrupting ourselves with safety compliance ironically by making them less safe but hay gotto do what gotto do
Dont wear cfmeu stickers on your hard hat boys or they will render the helmet useless in the event of a collision 
Select to expand quoteremery said..Rango said..
Yeh ,people became pretty stupid wearing masks all day.Was that correlation or causation.
Are you talking about the medical professionals who wear masks all day?
Geez it sounds risky going to hospital in a crowded operating room with that higher than outdoors co2 and all,plus wearing masks. How do they cope.
Lol ,I know what its like to work operating dangerous tools wearing a respirator all day in the heat and confined spaces.No problem.
Yep shoulda seen my ****ing reaction to these covid mask dramas when id spent 12 hours a day 7 days a week wearing a full respirator and even on the weekends id bung it on just for a bit of fun smear a bit of vicks on the inside and the pills would hit way harder
I imagine this news would be disappointing for the Climate Cult.
Perhaps there's some silver lying to the wasted US$3BILLION the climate fearful faithful would kindly share.
www.climatedepot.com/2025/03/04/solar-company-that-received-3-billion-biden-loan-warns-it-might-go-bankrupt-sunnova-energy-received-largest-federal-loan-to-a-solar-company-in-history/
Mainstream press for balance, if an industry crisis is is ya kinda thing:
finance.yahoo.com/news/sunnova-71-stock-plunge-heralds-174347524.html
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
I imagine this news would be disappointing for the Climate Cult.
Perhaps there's some silver lying to the wasted US$3BILLION the climate fearful faithful would kindly share.
www.climatedepot.com/2025/03/04/solar-company-that-received-3-billion-biden-loan-warns-it-might-go-bankrupt-sunnova-energy-received-largest-federal-loan-to-a-solar-company-in-history/
Mainstream press for balance, if an industry crisis is is ya kinda thing:
finance.yahoo.com/news/sunnova-71-stock-plunge-heralds-174347524.html
Not really sure the point you are trying to make, brother.
Looks like a questionable company is going under and have trouble servicing their massive loan due to high interest rates and lower state incentives. Now, President Donald Trump's moves against green energy means developers of large-scale projects are seeing new risks.
Probably lots of companies in U.S. going under.
I'd think stock market investors are more dissapointed right now. Warren Buffett calls tariffs 'an act of war'.
www.reuters.com/breakingviews/climate-policy-requires-more-realistic-approach-2025-02-28/
It was all going south before Trump ,net zero is basically an economic war on yourself.Watch embeded video if you dont want to read.
Haaaahahahaha tariffs an act of war?!?!
NEVER LISTEN TO THE RICH
Oldmate berkshire hathaway pulled theyre mobey out of the stock market almost a year ago so they could place puts on everything thats getting tarriffed and then theyll acquire those companys at theyre alltime low
Its a fire sale and trump was needed to start the fire
Select to expand quoteRango said..
www.reuters.com/breakingviews/climate-policy-requires-more-realistic-approach-2025-02-28/
It was all going south before Trump ,net zero is basically an economic war on yourself.Watch embeded video if you dont want to read.
Top material. I thought this was accurate:
?si=EPKMc8UK0KaBYj1N
Well how else do you expect to power factories to make solar panels?
You need to build the panels first before you can use them to power factories.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Well how else do you expect to power factories to make solar panels?
You need to build the panels first before you can use them to power factories.
Will never happen!
www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2024/02/29/german-deindustrialization-is-a-wake-up-call-for-us-manufacturers/
You seriously need to wake up.
And this piece is not as scathing as it should be .
Its a national security death wish.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Well how else do you expect to power factories to make solar panels?
You need to build the panels first before you can use them to power factories.
Solar panels alone will never power massive factories such as car plants and steel blast furnaces (unless we cover the country in a dystopian PV Panel desert like the opening scene of Blade Runner 2035).
These ideas are a pipe dream of climate zealots, who ignore reality and believe all the Net Zero propaganda.
Rango is onto it - the zealots need to "wake up".
Australia will likely leverage its vast natural gas resources long before considering the nuanced complexities of building nuclear power plants.
Select to expand quotephiln said..
Surely nuclear electricity generation should be part of the solution?
Anything that actually provides stable and reliable base-load power capable of powering heavy industry and modern living should and must be part of the solution.
We had this, but the climate zeolots stuffed it all up.
"Net Zero" and "off-grid" are fine for individual cases, but not for entire energy systems run by incompetent and corrupt governments and government agencies beholden to ridiculous pseudo-religious climate ideology.
Renewables are a farce, not one bit of private investment in them in Australia that isn't subsidised by government, they just can't compete on their own to feet. Any company or entity pushing them is just lining their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. Its disgusting greed at it worst.
What about fossil fuel subsidies?
australiainstitute.org.au/post/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Select to expand quote
The biggest fossil fuel "subsidy" by a long shot is a tax break, ie paying less of the additional tax that is added to the cost of the fuel technology
Whereas government subsidies for renewables assist to reduce the actual cost of fuel technology.
That's a big difference, your response is a deception, the subsidies are not like for like,
If the government dumped all "subsidies" on all fuels, both fossil and renewable, renewables would not be getting used at all.
Anyway you didn't even get the point of the video because you didn't watch it. Big business people are pushing renewables on the general population making everyone pay more for everything because its making them rich as they gorge themselves in government subsidies, its greed at the cost of everyone's standard of living.
A cost of living crisis being driven by corporate greed and ideologically blind morons.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
The biggest fossil fuel "subsidy" by a long shot is a tax break, ie paying less of the additional tax that is added to the cost of the fuel technology
Whereas government subsidies for renewables assist to reduce the actual cost of fuel technology.
That's a big difference, your response is a deception, the subsidies are not like for like,
If the government dumped all "subsidies" on all fuels, both fossil and renewable, renewables would not be getting used at all.
Anyway you didn't even get the point of the video because you didn't watch it. Big business people are pushing renewables on the general population making everyone pay more for everything because its making them rich as they gorge themselves in government subsidies, its greed at the cost of everyone's standard of living.
A cost of living crisis being driven by corporate greed and ideologically blind morons.
True, I didn't watch the video.
I find it difficult to dedicate the time and attention necessary to understand and review videos compared to reading text.
Any way, to your points above.
-Regarding government subsidising private investment into establishing renewable energy industry.
Over a hundred years ago governments decided they wanted Electricity, so the governments invested tax payer money in developing Electricity Generation and distribution.
In many areas this was essentially wholey Government funded, almost zero private investment. Just look at Victoria before privatisation, who funded the majority of Electricity Generation and distribution over the 20th century?
Now Governments (not private entities or companies) are pushing for the establishment of Renewable Electricity industry to supplement the existing energy system.
Why is it bad for Governments to subsidise the development of industry that they are pushing for?
Fossil fuel tax break
- I'm assuming you're referring to the Fuel Tax Credit scheme? The one that gives tax breaks to mining, transport and primary industries that use diesel? According to the link above that's worth about $10Billion every year.
Yes, this is a subsidy on the cost of the fuel, but the infrastructure to harvest, refine and distribute that fuel has already been developed.
Despite that, the same link still says there is another $4.5 Billion in subsidies that is primarily spent on Direct Payments and Infrastructure Construction every year.
According to the centre for independent studies, the subsidies for Renewables have been Estimated at a whopping 29 Billion Dollars!!!
www.cis.org.au/publication/counting-the-cost-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/
Oh wait.....
That's $29 Billion over 10 years.
That's an average of $2.9 billion a year for all the different types of subsidies used to Grow renewable energy production to 39% of the National Energy Market.
Whereas that's only 2 years worth of fossil fuel subsidies, and they've lost market share to renewables.
If big businesses are gorging themselves on subsidies, then actual development of renewable resources must be very efficient if they can grow so much while money is being siphoned off to line peoples pockets?
I dunno D3.
We've discussed these so-called subsidies many times before.
I clicked the link you gave, then the first link in that link, which eventually got me to a claim there was a direct payment of $113m to upgrade railway lines that carry thermal coal. Problem is most of that coal is then exported, generating several revenue streams for the government far in excess of the $113m they spent, much like your valid argument about government 'investment' in renewables industry isn't necessaily the same as a 'subsidy'.
The subsidies cammd is referring to are exclusively related to putting electricity into the grid. If you take the claimed $14billion in fossil fuel subsides strip out the $10bn that is due to a different tax not being applied (which you could just as equally argue is woth $20bn if the not tax was twice as much), and then remove anything that isn't related to grid electricty generation - and then compare that to renewable electricty generation for the grid subsidies, then the story becomes a lot less interesting.
Making it simples, more renewables are hitting the grid and the price is going up. We were all told renewable generation would bring prices down. Many people argued it wouldn't because until you sort out the storage, distribution and use changes that also need to come with renewables, then the generating side alone won't reduce prices. Which is exactly what the case appears to be. And if you add those things to the cost of renewables you don't get the same outcome when you ignore them.
I'm keen on genuine discussion here, as I want to learn more about what's going on.
As Carantocs comment points out, the situation is a little more "nuanced" (I know) than just comparing subsidies.
What are the reasons the costs of energy is increasing?
Government is stipulating that a certain amount of energy needs to be sourced from renewables.
The supply of renewables is increasing.
How do the subsidies impact the actual cost of energy to a household or small business?
How much of the cost increases is because it costs more to supply energy in general?
Just blaming renewables doesn't help me understand, pointing out where th costs are coming from will help.
Would we prefer subsidising private industry or the government taking back ownership of the Energy supply and distribution and making the entire switch to renewables on tax payer dollar?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
I'm keen on genuine discussion here, as I want to learn more about what's going on.
As Carantocs comment points out, the situation is a little more "nuanced" (I know) than just comparing subsidies.
What are the reasons the costs of energy is increasing?
Government is stipulating that a certain amount of energy needs to be sourced from renewables.
The supply of renewables is increasing.
How do the subsidies impact the actual cost of energy to a household or small business?
How much of the cost increases is because it costs more to supply energy in general?
Just blaming renewables doesn't help me understand, pointing out where th costs are coming from will help.
Would we prefer subsidising private industry or the government taking back ownership of the Energy supply and distribution and making the entire switch to renewables on tax payer dollar?
I'd absolutely support distribution and retail sales of electricty being in government or commumity ownership.
I do feel generation is a lttle different and if somebody can find a better way to do that then good on them and why shouldn't they benefit.
Perhaps one issue is the AEMO NEM spot price of electricty is measured in 5 minute units.
Any generator only has to be able to produce cheap electricy for five minutes to be able to gain. To keep the lights on for the other 23 hours 55 minutes, or 365 days or 25 years, somebody else has pick up the difference. And picking up the slack for random periods costs. And it seems to be costing more then the benefit of a cheap 5 minutes.
Perhaps if the payment to the generators more reflect the manner in which consumption occurs it would help.
Although some manner of a spot price could help drive innovation much better than fixed long term contracts.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
How do the subsidies impact the actual cost of energy to a household or small business?
That's the question.
But I don't see how the '$14bn subsidy to fossil fuel industry' arguement is any part of any answer.
It's what some people want you to beLIEve the answer is. To me it is fake-news propoganda. And not very good fake-news propoganda at that.
Not saying it is not relevant to something, or not that it is even true. Just that it has zero to do with any discussion about what my electricty bill is going up at the moment, and will continue to do so.
How do you factor the government $300 and now extra $150 electrity bill rebate into the subsidies ? That only goes to households and small businesses, so do you start claiming this is an unfair subsidy against the big miners and manufacturers that don't recieve it ?
Outside of the costs of establishing the infrastructure, what is driving the cost of supplying energy to our homes?
"Subsidies
Australia seems economically dependent on GHG-intensive corporations, but it is also the case that they are dependent on extracting subsidies from Australian taxpayers. Over the 2020-21 financial year leading up to COP26, one of the largest fossil fuel subsidies was the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS) which cost $7.848 billion, making it the eighteenth outlay in the Australian Federal Budget and greater than the $7.820 billion cost of the Australian Army or $7.553 billion cost of the Royal Australian Air Force. The FTCS subsidises the consumption of fossil fuels and provides tax credits to fossil fuel producers. A tax of 42 cents per litre is levied on petrol and diesel purchased by consumers; however, the FTCS then subsidises the cost of petrol and diesel for certain businesses by rebating the credits equivalent to their expenditure on the tax. Since 2006, 43 per cent of the total fuel tax credits have been returned to the mining industry. Essentially, nearly half of the tax collected goes back to mining corporations. In addition to the FTCS, $1.03 billion was spent by the Australian Government on tax concessions for aviation fuel and the offshore oil and gas industry, $1.4 billion was spent by state and federal governments on infrastructure for the industry and to assist fuel production, and both state and federal governments have committed to future spending of $8.3 billion to the fossil fuel industry through projects and capital spending."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajph.12986
Whole combination of things, much like everything else in life. retailer's profits, generaotrs profits, investors return, NEM spot price, price of long term contracts, price of gas, maintenance cost of coal, cap the regulator sets on rechargable maintenance cost of poles and wires etc. etc.
Logic tells me spreading the fixed cost of coal and gas generators across a smaller and smaller revenue base is also one thing. The quantity is driven down by the sporadic input the renewables have into the system. Putting it simples, if it cost a gas plant $1 a day to just tick over without selling anything, and they used to sell a full capacity 100 units of power but now they sell half cpacity 50 units of power because during the day the solar plant next door sells all its power, the $1 fixed cost becomes more per unit. Yes, the solar plant generation is cheaper per variable unit, but the total cost into the system isn't less, it is more. Maybe allowing the spot price to be in 5 minute intervals is something that works well in some circumstances, but not when you have a significant % mix of both instantaneous and base load generation, as we do now ?
But I don't know the full answer to all indivudual costs, if you want a detailed breakdown you'd be best goggling it. AEMO might be good place to start. The Goggle AI answer probably isn't.
I just doubt the diesel fuel tax rebate an iron ore miner gets or doesn't get is any part of it, despite what Extinction Rebellion scream at you.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"Subsidies
Australia seems economically dependent on GHG-intensive corporations, but it is also the case that they are dependent on extracting subsidies from Australian taxpayers. Over the 2020-21 financial year leading up to COP26, one of the largest fossil fuel subsidies was the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme (FTCS) which cost $7.848 billion, making it the eighteenth outlay in the Australian Federal Budget and greater than the $7.820 billion cost of the Australian Army or $7.553 billion cost of the Royal Australian Air Force. The FTCS subsidises the consumption of fossil fuels and provides tax credits to fossil fuel producers. A tax of 42 cents per litre is levied on petrol and diesel purchased by consumers; however, the FTCS then subsidises the cost of petrol and diesel for certain businesses by rebating the credits equivalent to their expenditure on the tax. Since 2006, 43 per cent of the total fuel tax credits have been returned to the mining industry. Essentially, nearly half of the tax collected goes back to mining corporations. In addition to the FTCS, $1.03 billion was spent by the Australian Government on tax concessions for aviation fuel and the offshore oil and gas industry, $1.4 billion was spent by state and federal governments on infrastructure for the industry and to assist fuel production, and both state and federal governments have committed to future spending of $8.3 billion to the fossil fuel industry through projects and capital spending."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajph.12986
The army and airforce (and contractors working for them) get the same fuel tax rebate. That doesn't appear to be included in the figures above.
Then again, so you do you or I, if we use fuel for the eligible purposes. It is a pretty broad-based rebate. Perhaps one of the broadest ?
The federal government's $300 electricty bill rebate to households and small businesses in FY24-25 plus the newly annoucned additional $150 will cost the government (or more accurately cost us) about $4.2bn. Add on to that the various state government measures and I dunno what the total is......
....but the $7.8bn total cost cited above, of which 43% went to mining companies is probably less than the subsidy to households for high electricty bills, a result of a transition to renewable generation. Why not add that to the cost of renewables, if you are adding the lack of tax to the cost of fossil fuels ?
A variable rate corporation tax, same as idea of a variable rate personnal income tax, would seem to me more of a target of inequality of big business, than a broad-based non-tax available equally to everyone to equally not pay.
Or the issues with the PRRT, or the state based resource royalties not linked to export price of the commodity if you want to just target one industry you don't like, but everything you have (and want) comes from.
