Printable View
so when does it actually get checked/lodgedQuote:
Originally Posted by russ57
whats to stop the rort of "i only drove it 2000K's this year" but actually put 15,000 on it? I could understand if during a pink slip the person doing the rego check does it, but you don't need a pink slip on cars less then 5 years old (in nsw)
as far as I know -- ha ha -- for the past 5 to 10 years, all BEVs and Hybrids came with continuous GPS positioning which automatically (as in can't turn it off) records distance travelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by havabeer69
Rather trivial to remote query the GPS as to how far the vehicle has travelled in the past week, month, quarter, year, etc. This data is already collected for ICE vehicles, so there should be no privacy concerns about the ATO knowing.
Then it would be not much harder to include in the query "where has the vehicle exceeded the posted speed limit in the period in question?"
Which does lead to significant privacy concerns, as the question is very blunt with no nuance for why the speed limit was exceeded.
The issue will then be kms travelled on private roads -- currently refunded as fuel excise system -- and kms travelled on public roads, which is captured within the fuel excise tax.
.
.
The Federal and State governments have been working on this issue (how to tax EVs) for something like the past 15 years.
No need for backdoor readings. And just because the vehicle monitors its own travel doesn't mean it is publishing it.
Requirement is to send a photo of odometer. Trivial to have ocr to extract the current reading.
I suppose if one had a second vehicle with similar display but lower kms you could send the readings from it instead. So long as it doesn't get sold or scrapped before the ev...
Makes one wonder what the ultimate purpose of an odometer really is.
If one fibbed on the taxes/km paid, then it could be taken out of your hide when the car is sold?
I'd imagine it might be a compulsory part of insurance soon(?). I get a discount as I travel less than 10k km/yr. I effectively go nowhere, so their risk is lower. It doesn't take much imagination to see this system abused by Them...
has no one heard of photoshop :U
They could easily use the existing authorised pink slip inspection system to do an official odometre reading and lodge it on the system as a mandatory requirement before you can renew your rego
BeardyQuote:
Originally Posted by Beardy
That would only work in states such as NSW where there are yearly mandatory checkups. However, perhaps a yearly odometer check could be organised in other states such as QLD.
Regards
Paul
Only for cars >3 years old in NSW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Only when you sell your car in QLD.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Regards
Paul
Agree it would be easier to apply to the NSW system but still would not be an enormous event to implement a similar system elsewhere. There are plenty of chain store operators that would take on the agency to boost revenue and get people into their storesQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Even 2 cents per km is only $200 for 10,000.
One COULD lie, but whats the point?
It could be as simple as:
- A portal where one logs in, advises the rego and Km, pays with a card and you're done*, OR
- Done yearly with ones tax (as if the ATO couldn't get everyone's rego anyway)
- Advised to the insurer once per year (have a crash and the numbers are vastly wrong?... "what insurance, sir?")
- At the time of a service (of some kind)
- Telemetry reported by the car as part of its existing processes (of updates, battery condition, energy sharing, etc)
and ultimately, collected at the time of sale or being written off.
All of these would be trivial to implement.
* this is EXACTLY what happens in the ACT now.
an "typical" ICE vehicle achieves about 10 l/100km, so 10,000 km would equate to around 1000 litres of fuel, which at the current fuel excise rate of 46 cents/litre is around $460.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Decrease the fuel efficiency of the ICE and/or increase the annual mileage travelled and you're starting to look at an amount where lying about the km travelled starts to become worthwhile.
The way I've always looked at fuel excise is that it's vehicle usage tax that in part pays for road construction and maintenance, in part compensates for the externalities of using a motor vehicle -- e.g. hospital costs for persons injured in vehicle crashes, general pollution (dust from rubber tyres, etc)
Not that the money raised through the excise tax is not explicitly directed towards the externalities associated with using a motor vehicle.
Market spot prices have been a little less volatile of late. I thought these few might be of interest:
Attachment 522634
The Wed figures were only a prediction and not actual.
The day with the highest range of spot prices resulted in the lowest average price.
The day with the highest demand resulted in the highest spot price. This is to be expected.
These prices only for QLD
There are demand stats for four states.
Nothing to do with these figures, but there is a high temperature forecast for this coming weekend (Sunday in particular) and correspondingly high market prices.
Regards
Paul
A little bit about Hydrogen: This came from CS Energy and is a little bit of self-inflation without too much detail. They do identify that industry and heavy transport could be the main benefactors where batteries, as they currently exist, are impractical.
CS Energy Queensland | Power Generator in Queensland (csenergytomorrow.com.au)
However, this is for the various colours and is to some extent onanism :wink::
Colours of Hydrogen | Understanding the Spectrum of Hydrogen (csenergytomorrow.com.au)
Really, only Yellow (I hadn't realised there was any distinction from green) and Green hydrogen have any worthwhile benefit.
This is a video of the transportation of the replacement generator for the unit damaged at Callide C4. I don't think they specify too much detail (again), but elsewhere I have seen that the weight was 600 tonnes and the length of the road train was 120m. It would be interesting at roundabouts and on the fast corners. Quite a few prime movers and lots of self steering wheels.
Road transfer of Callide Unit C4 new generator stator - YouTube
Regards
Paul
When I did chemistry in school, Paul, hydrogen used to be an odourless, colourless, tasteless gas. Don't really understand how you can paint it in rainbow colours.
Think this stuff has come from the commissar for propaganda and not from the engineering department.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I think the use of Hydrogen as a fuel has "evolved." When it was first touted so many people said, "what a jolly good idea," or words to that effect and followed quickly with "we will have some of that cake." Then upspoke some genius who pointed out that if the object was to have a fuel source that did not produce CO2 emissions it wasn't really feasible to burn fossil fuel to produce this hydrogen. Now this in no way deterred the rascal element of hydrogen production continuing to state how good their hydrogen was even if it used gas to make the hydrogen. In fact, if you are going to use a fossil fuel for this purpose, you would be better off (less CO2 emissions) just burning the fossil fuel direct.
To our enlightened Forum readers this is painfully obvious and in truth you don't need a genius to point this out. You just need half a brain that has been severely impacted by alcohol and it sticks out like the proverbials.
However, not everybody is a Forum member and for those a colour scheme was formulated. It was probably originally intended to be aired on "Playschool" and targeted at the under fives, but has inevitably found it's way into the greater populace and has now gained traction even with respected news organisations (not too many of those about, but that's another story). Of course, you are quite right and the colour is just the same as when we were at school.
:)
Regards
Paul
Its too complex.
It should be just a number.
100 is pure evil. It is H2 that uses irreplaceable resources and emits CO2 as part of its production.
1 is good, sweet, loving H2. It is generated using Science and no irreplaceable resources were used in its creation, nor its creation emitted CO2, nor needed some carbon-capture-offset rubbish mumbo jumbo to hide the fact its actually evil.
- 1 is not taxed.
- 100 is taxed.
- The tax scale slides as a percentage, at the percentage of its determined creation Evilness and CO2 emission. Said tax percentage goes from 1 to 100....
- This will enthusiastically encourage vendors to develop the most clean, the most environmentally sound, the greenest possible H2... or they pay a heavy price to input it into the market.
- Consumers will avoid heavily taxed H2 in favour of lighter taxed manufacturers.
- It will also act as a subsidy to encourage science based solutions, rather than dig-and-burn solutions.
- and from there... its all rather obvious.
After all, Hydrogen is number 1. :D
Ahh ... but .... you are talking about evilness to the extreme when it comes to suppliers of go juice.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
They will come up with a cunning plan to sell "1" as "100" with tax levied upon the hapless customer but then pocket the said tax through a convoluted corporate structure and an offshore tax haven. :rolleyes:
Way back in the 1950's when Australia had a 18% inflation and a Price Justification Tribunal charged with fighting inflation, I had a friend who was an accountant with the PJT. They had a client who imported white goods and advised that "they added a margin of 1% to most product lines and up to 2% on others." Nevertheless, they were still audited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobyturns
It all evolved on their definition of 1%. They imported goods with a cost into store (CIS) of $100, after purchase price, freight, customs, insurance, etc had all been paid, then they added "1%" and wholesaled the goods for $200, unless they thought they could get away with $300.
Tezza still insists that he believes that this and a couple of other companies is the reason that major white goods manufacturers brought in the agency marketing model.
An interesting article on microgeneration of zappies.
Melbourne scientists find enzyme that can make electricity out of tiny amounts of hydrogen - ABC News
In today's news there is an article about relieving fixed export limits for solar panels to the grid.
World-first flexible export limits are coming to rooftop solar. Here'''s how they work - ABC News
This is the kind of simple but brilliant tech that will get us there. Flooding the grid apparently only happens around 2 % of the time, or something ridiculously small, so until now the whole system gets choked down all the time and solar generated power is just being wasted.
Nicely spotted, FF.
That problem must be particularly accute in South Australia because they source such a high percentage of their electricity from renewables - an incredible 66% from solar and wind. On a windy, sunny day the overloads must be incredible.
Tasmania is over 99% renewables - 80% hydro and 20% solar plus wind. The other states are lagging.
Attachment 523739
Western Australia still generates around 85% of its electricity from fossil fuels - only 15% from renewables - solar + wind. Silly me, I thought WA was sunny!
Thanks FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
The "flooding " of the grid only happens occasionally during low demand periods coupled with high wind and solar generation. It is true to say that at this stage of the game only SA has the capacity to supply it's electrical demand with 100% renewables: But only rarely. Really there should be an emphasis on facilities to store the surplus energy and that is the area that requires the most attention.
Regards
Paul
Graeme
Those are interesting statistics you have posted. However, while true in some regards they may be a little mis-misleading in others. I am in no way suggesting that was your intention. However, a couple of comments would be:
1. Although SA has the highest percentage of renewables, it is the percentage of their demand, which is the smallest of all the states excepting Tasmania. However, Tassie is only a little smaller. I think QLD has the highest percentage of renewables, but with a demand averaging around three times that of SA the percentage is well down based on that demand figure.
2. The split for SA only indicates renewables and gas. What happened to the 500MW interconnector from Victoria where the predominance is brown coal? Without that interconnector SA would be down the gurgler.
I imagine that somewhere in the fine print of those stats there is a reference to daytime consumption or some other qualification.
Regards
Paul
Hi Paul
That bar chart was produced by the Federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water - what a mouthful - in April last year. Hopefully, it will be updated next month? The chart depicts electricity produced in each state and territory - it does not say anything about transfers or ultimate consumption.
My understanding of the "grid overload" or "flooding" problem is that grid-wide it is an infrequent issue. However, at the micro level, it is quite a common occurence. Small geographic areas may be sunny and windy and produce excess electricity and that sector of the grid gets overloaded faster that the energy can be transferred elsewhere. Essentailly, the grid is set up to transfer electricity into suburbs, not out, but that a process of adaptation is underway.
I do not understand your comment about Queensland. According to the DCCEEW bar chart, Western Australia is the only state that produces a lower percentage of its electricity from renewables than Queensland.
Who names government departments? I can remember one and two word names.
The thing that struck me about the bar chart is how different the sourcing of electricity is between the states.
Wait to see what happens when liddle power station shuts down next month
Theres 900mw out of the grid.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I think the percentage relates to the individual state generation. Therefore SA may be able to supply, at times, 100% of a low demand. Say 1500MW. So assume they have a 1500MW capability. QLD may also be able to deliver 1500MW but as a percentage of a 6000MW demand that would only show up as 25% on the bar chart. If QLD can supply 2200MW of renewables they would clearly have more capability than SA but as a percentage of demand it doesn't look as good.
Now, don't take my figures as precise, because they most certainly are not. I chose those figures to make the sums easy. However, I think it makes the point and hence my early comment about who produces the most.
Regards
Paul
HABQuote:
Originally Posted by havabeer69
We may see the two interconnectors from QLD to NSW running hot for quite a while!
Regards
Paul
We already have a flexible limit designed into every inverter which will throttle your export as the grid voltage rises and cut off your export at 255v. For most people in suburbs with lots of solar this happens every day during peak solar generation and for a lot of rural properties as well. The problem is the grid was never designed for rooftop solar and limiting export to 5kw is the only way to have equity. In fact the solar generation is so great during the day that generators are quite often paying for people to take the excess supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
We can never get to 80% renewable or even 50% without a massive investment in the grid infrastructure.
Well, reducing the number of "nookelar" submarines ordered by one single unit should be enough to cover the "massive investment in the grid infrastructure" and wouldn't take 20 or 30 years to start seeing a difference....!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutz
Totally agree, we got fleeced on the sub deals. Countries thrive or die on the cost of energy and the only countries that are lowering their energy costs are China and Russia. Mind you China holds third world status so is not required to meet any future emissions targets and will likely receive "compensation" from countries like Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvan
I can recall only one blackout this year but that is likely to change for the worst very soon. Imagine running a company and the power goes out, 0 productivity but same labour cost. These are the real issues facing EU countries right now and Australia is walking straight into the same.
haveabeer mentioned in post #1026 that Liddell would be shutting down in April. It appears that the date is 28 April. This article tries to explain some of what has been happening:
‘It can’t be left to the market’: the closure of the Liddell power station and the uncertainty of the future (msn.com)
A few comments would be that Liddell is indeed at the end of it's life. In fact I was there for about 18 months around 1985 and it might have been argued that the end was nigh even back then. It is remarkable that it has lasted even this long.
For some time only three of the four units have been operating. The fourth unit was probably a spare parts store. Of the three remaining units all have been de-rated from their nominal 500MW capacity down to 320MW and in practice rarely supply much more than 300MW. Consequently the effective loss to the national grid when Liddell shuts its doors is about that 900MW mark: Not good, but not quite as bad as the 2000MW of the halcyon years.
The main problem now is that the strategies AGL were putting forward to pick up the slack and pacify opposition appear to have hit the first two or three hurdles. Some have been chopped completely, others have not really progressed and are truthfully a long way off. The other aspect to which we have to be wary is when the figures are trotted out. For example, there was talk of a 500MW battery ( this is one of the projects that has not progressed) as if that would replace a 500MW coal fired unit. Assuming that the battery is rated for one hour, which is not an unreasonable assumption based on what is typically available, replacement of the fossil fired unit, and fossil is so appropriate in this instance, would require 24 batteries of 500MW!
I read on to the concerns of the local communities as eventually power stations and coal mines begin to be phased out in the Hunter region. The COO, who hails from Dusseldorf, said that their were thousands of templates for absorbing the change. Hmm...Maybe, but I wasn't completely reassured by this statement when he continued by saying that Australia was not an island. I think he has a different Atlas to me.
I know that communities do adjust when industry is removed, but to suggest that it is easy, that there are many opportunities and that it is not without pain is a lie. It is always galling in the extreme when a person who is probably well placed in the community as far as finances go glibly implies that everything will be OK. Rubbish. There will be a mile of hurt. The time to prepare is right now.
Communities adjust, because they are forced to adjust.
Regards
Paul
Déjà vu, California, all over again.
Shall we consider one scenario:
AGL closes Liddel on schedule; the Greenies applaud, all that nasty coal fire pollution removed from the atmosphere, and 900 MW electricity removed from the supply chain.
But, as Paul says, little effective planning has occured to replace that 900MW. Peak hour wholesale electricity prices will soar due to "market forces". Electricity demand in the short to medium term is notoriously inelastic - people do not switch off the lights when prices rise.
And AGL will be ready to supply a reduced amount of electricity from their other plants at substantially higher prices. It is all due to "market forces". AGL would not manipulate the market.
Surely AGL would not be that cynical?
Surely I am not being cynical?
Surely, our politicians could not be that stupid?
I have repeatedly, and somewhat boringly, trotted out the mantra that there is no power source today that does not have at least one fundamental flaw or in some instances several fundamental flaws. I think nuclear may fall into this second category.
This is a little demolition job on the nuclear option:
Disarming the persistent myths of a glowing nuclear renaissance (msn.com)
One of the flaws in any proposal, electrical or otherwise, is assuming that everything will go just fine. This is often far from the truth as this castigation implies.
Regards
Paul
All true, as long as you can outsource all manufacturing to some 'friendly' nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Looks pretty simple in this Navy training image. What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Attachment 525185
Hi TMQuote:
Originally Posted by TermiMonster
I'm not quite sure that I get the drift of your comment and whether you are for or against the nukes. Perhaps you could clarify.
Regards
Paul
DougQuote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
I like the sentiment.
One of the issues that occurs to me regarding nuke subs is that their strength is to remain beneath the ocean for extended periods of time, up to a year if I have understood the promotional blurb correctly. I wonder what effect this has on the crew being stuck in a tin box under the sea for such a period of time. Do they finally surface undamaged as well-balanced citizens?
However, your cartoon is very pertinent as where a conventional power station might have a safety system in place to minimise the chances of an accident, the nukes will have three systems: Firstly, this comes at a very heavy cost and secondly, it does not always work. Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island are three highly publicised events that demonstrate the consequences of a failure.
The limiting factor is the crew - more specifically their need to eat and their mental resilience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
And who exactly said that submariners were "well-balanced citizens? in the first place? :no:
(Before anyone gets too critical of that comment, I have spent a little time on submarineswhile in the Army, not a qualified submariner but my skills in other fields were needed once or twice)
Attachment 525192
Nuclear fuel pellets - Science Photo Library
Quote:
Nuclear fuel pellets. Gloved hands holding life- sized models of nuclear fuel pellets with their injection rod. Each pellet can produce the same amount of energy as 3 tons of coal. The pellets are designed for use in fast breeder nuclear reactors. These use fuel containing fissile uranium and plutonium, surrounded by a core of non-fissile uranium-238. During the reaction, neutrons are formed that collide with the U-238 to form fissile plutonium-239. The reaction generates more plutonium than it consumes
We need mega-projects for solar, battery, CAES and phase out coal. There is no future in it.Quote:
This gloved hand holds life-sized models of nuclear fuel pellets with their injection rod. Each pellet can produce the same energy as 3 tons of coal, so this handful equals ~60 tons of coal or ~28,000 m³ of gas or ~34,000 liters of oil
edit - I wanted to add this to the reading pile. Getting a nuker up and running is no trivial task. This one just commissioned took 18 YEARS: 14 years late, Finland?s new reactor, Olkiluoto 3, starts generating power - Global Construction Review
In contrast, this project can literally start generating next Tuesday if they get the damned agreement done: Mike Cannon-Brookes Archives - RenewEconomy