found a great site with the truth about CO2

Most of the carbon tax is going to be invested in renewable energy.

$10bn is the last figure I read.

So I would say the government is interested.

Ethanol usage is not quite as good as it sounds. It can only be cut with petrol to 10% for normal modern vehicles, and some experience adverse effects. In order for the resultant mixed fuel to have a minimum octane rating of 91, a more expensive octane fuel of 100 rating is required premixing. Also, ethanol has 34% of the energy volume density of petrol so you need more fuel to go the same distance.

Unless you are using special engines that run on approximately 100% ethanol (which have their own problems), there is not much point.

Saying that, there are new technologies coming out that make the whole ethanol cycle much more viable. Perhaps the benefits from the carbon tax could be resourced in bringing these technologies into economic reality?

 

OK, here is the logical fallacy. I can see where you are coming from...

5% sounds like a tiny bit, but in reality it is a bit more than that.

We are talking about reducing our current level of emissions by 5%.

People probably think our emissions were just sitting there.

Between 1990 to 2002 our emissions went up by 4.5%. Action would have been worth while to simply stop our emissions going up.

Our trend of "business as usual" would mean a possible increase of greater than 5% in emissions due to an accelerating economy.

The 5% decrease from the current trend of emissions is actually more than a 10-15% reduction from a "business as usual" scenario. Does this more representative number suit you better?

Australians produce 1.34% of the worlds emissions. Considering there is only 23 million of us, this is a lot. Per person we are the biggest polluters on the planet.

It is extremely embarrassing for the rest of the planet to watch us kick up a massive stink about not reducing our pollution. No other country in the world will ever have citizens polluting as much as us. As other countries are developing they are including cleaner and more efficient technologies in their development.

Abbott touts that China will increase it's pollution by 500% by 2020. This is no longer correct as China have announced their pollution will not increase more than 25% by then. China's citizens will never pollute as much as we do, there is just a lot more of them.

If the worlds biggest per capita polluters (us!) decide to do nothing, this will not only be embarrassing, it will also set precedent for others to do nothing.

The lazy "I don't want to do it because it won't make a difference in the world" argument is selfish, short sighted and looks like a child's tantrum.

 

God! You talk some rubbish azulene! How long have you been a member of the Labor party?

 

Err, I'm not.

What is the problem with what I have said?

I researched all of it and am well educated in chemistry. I know ethanol has a considerably lower energy content than petrol so you need considerably more to go the same distance. I know for a fact you can't run a normal engine on pure ethanol without seriously needing to change various aspects of the timing (belt, advance and ignition). I know usage of ethanol can lead to serious corrosion of the fuel lines / carburettor / injectors / valves.

how much money from the carbon tax will go into renewables?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74&feature=player_embedded"]Abbott on the carbon tax[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk"]Abbott on tax promises[/ame]

 

You researched nothing. Go and try again. When you can tell me the model that holden are manufacturing in Australia right now to run on E85 I will know that you have had at least a cursory look on the internet.
Ethanol is a superb replacement for petrol.

 

Most ethenol comes from corn. Corn has to be planted. You use petrol to plant the corn. Corn has to be fertilized. Most fertilizer is petroleum based. Petrol is used to fertilze the corn. Tractors run on hydrocarbons.

Corn has to be sprayed or cultivated to keep down weeds. This also uses petrol. Corn has to be hauled to the plant to be converted to ethenol. The plant uses heat to process the ethenol. The ethenol has to be hauled to the "pump" for the cutomer to buy.


You get about half the milage from ethenol as you get from petrol.

 

"Can I fuel my car with E85?
At this stage, very few cars on Australia's roads are capable of running on E85. Vehicles in Holden's VE Series II Commodore range are the first Australian-made cars to run on this fuel."link

So you need a special engine to run E85... The timing shifts are taken care of electronically and such cars are still rare.

and

"Holden has declined to say how much fuel economy changes when running the E85-compatible engines on bioethanol, however with less energy density in ethanol more fuel will have to be burned to produce the same amount of power as petrol."link

How does that conflict with:

So we will see much more meaningful CO2 savings from E85 in the form of Holden's VE Series II Commodore. A 3L engine is a bit of a contradiction, but if you must have your big engine, running it on ethanol is the way to go.

What I actually had in mind was new technology that can make ethanol from cellulose making the whole ethanol cycle much more viable. It should be much cheaper and efficient and not divert "food grade" materials into ethanol manufacture. So one would expect it would be cheaper at the bowser, more popular and more of an economic reality.

 

Ethenol from sugar cane...is a better deal.

 

research is being done at Auburn University here in Bama on making ethenol from switchgrass...don't know how it is turning out.

 

If you look a bit further you will find most cars on Australian roads today are capable of running on E85. It is already programed into their computers, you just have to get the programing switched over. The Holden is the first car to be MANUFACTURED in Australia to run on it. Engines designed specificaly to run on ethanol are better than those which also run on ULP because to get more power from the ethanol you need much higher compression than you can run ULP with. I would also suggest you look up the octane rating of ethanol. And read this;

One liter of ethanol contain 21.1 MJ, a liter of methanol 15.8 MJ and a liter of gasoline approximately 32.6 MJ. In other words, for the same energy content as one liter or one gallon of gasoline, one needs 1.6 liters/gallons of ethanol and 2.1 liters/gallons of methanol. The raw energy-per-volume numbers produce misleading fuel consumption numbers however, because alcohol-fueled engines can be made substantially more energy-efficient. A larger percentage of the energy available in a liter of alcohol fuel can be converted to useful work. This difference in efficiency can partially or totally balance out the energy density difference, depending on the particular engines being compared.

If Brazil can have 70% of their cars running on pure ethanol there is no reason why we can't too. Brazil did it back in the 70's.

 

I don't care what Abbott says.

The simple fact is world wide increases in emissions will swallow up any savings we make within months (if we ever make them)

So world wide emissions will go up, AWG effects must also increase.

Why is this simple fact so hard to accept?

 

Actually, Oxy old mate, even if Dullard's carbon tax causes 'market forces' to bring about a reduction in our emmisions, the reduction will be swallowed IN HOURS by increases from other nations.

 

Why won't the supporters of this tax and climate change recognise this simple fact?

I know they’ll rabbit on with per capita, lead the way.

They are even gullible enough to think we will lead the world in exporting green technology.

 

Cholesterol is a waxy steroid of fat that is produced in the liver or intestines. It is used to produce hormones and cell membranes and is transported in the blood plasma of all mammals. It is an essential structural component of mammalian cell membranes and is required to establish proper membrane permeability and fluidity. In addition, cholesterol is an important component for the manufacture of bile acids, steroid hormones, and Vitamin D. Cholesterol is the principal sterol synthesized by animals; however, small quantities can be synthesized in other eukaryotes such as plants and fungi.

Now cholesterol is made from 27 atoms of Carbon 46 atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.

WOW now I know that not only cholesterol is good, but so is CO2

Looks like 30 years as a biochemist and I have been looking at things all wrong

Really what this article is saying so that those of you who do not understand it is the same as some cosmetic companies use to hide a lie with facts. Note this is not limited to cosmetics it is one that I know.

I once saw a jar of some magic potion on my wifes dresser.

It stated.
1: Elastin is one of the major structural components of your skin.
2: The breakdown of elastin over the years causes wrinkles.
3: This cream contains elastin.

All very true, BUT. This does not mean the elastin in the cream can be rubbed into the skin to replace or repair damaged elastin, because it won't, it's actually no better than a cheaper cold cream. The dermal layer and blood supply are just as stimulated rubbing in cold cream as they are the expensive stuff.

Actually cosmetic companies are like those that do not believe in the greenhouse affect. Will dish out loads of facts that say absolutely nothing, but even sadder is that some actually believe it

Its real and only those with a vested interest (financial) are saying it's not.

Wake up before it's unfixable

 

Please try not to generalize. I haven't seen anybody deny that global emissions will increase due to other countries. I believe the difference in opinion comes from you thinking that is a good excuse to do nothing, while the others think it is a poor excuse to do nothing.

 

Mental incompetence

Well said Lepper

 

How dishonest!


I said we need to be prepared for a future of inevitable worsening climate, as inevitably emissions world-wide are going up.

It’s not that hard, sheesh.

 

Praise the Lord! Well said.

 

I think this is on the right track...

australia-exempts-biofuels-from-fuel-taxes-through-2021

In Australia, the federal parliament passed legislation exempting biodiesel, ethanol and renewable diesel fuels from the 38.14 cents-a-litre fuel excise tax through 2012. typo in the article, meant to say 2021

“This legislation brings about the certainty for industry which has been absent for some time” said Heather Brodie, CEO of the Biofuels Association of Australia.

“The bipartisan support for the passage of the biofuels bills is welcomed and results in assurance for legislation which was first announced back in 2004. Reflecting extensive negotiations with stakeholders, the Greens, the Coalition and crossbench MPs alike, this legislation will ensure that alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel play a growing role in Australia’s transition towards low emission fuels and domestic energy security.”

 

So your solution is to do nothing?

Everyone sitting around pointing at everyone else saying you are doing nothing so I will do nothing...

Brilliant....

Actually, you probably haven't noticed this, but a lot of the advertisements on tv in Australia about the carbon tax are from foreign companies who are very scared that if we start doing something in Australia, more action will spread abroad.

It is about money, the money of the fossil fuel companies.

Look at who funds the adverts.....

Now they have started forming groups that are getting more difficult to trace but after 1-2 steps in you can see the money is coming from coal companies...

 

Another example of this is the galileomovement website posted in the OP. A few (I've only looked into a few, so possibly more) of their experts/advisers have a blatant bias to the fossil fuel industry which the website conveniently omits.

The few I know of are Ian Plimer, who is a director of four mining companies, and Fred Singer and Dick Lindzen who have ties to the fossil fuel industry and have defended it in the past.

Not to mention people like Andrew Bolt and Monckton whose opinions hold little to no weight on the subject. The icing on the cake is their patron, Alan Jones

So much for being 'non-partisan' and wanting to 'appeal to all political parties'.

 

OK, one last time considering your total lack of comprehension and myopic responses.

First off i did not say sit around and do nothing those are your words, don't attribute crap to me i didn't say.

All i am saying again is....

World wide emissions are increasing, if AGW is real then the effects of AGW will increase, whether we like it or not, whether we do anything or not.

We need to protect ourself from the oncoming threats/changes to our environment.

Money from any tax should be spent on infrastructure to deal with the on coming effects of increased climate change.

People talk about this like the world is some big cosy community. Developing countries aren't going to slow down, they can't, We should move to renewables for sure, but right now the aim should be preparation for the enevitable.

Our region has had the solar carrot dangled in front of it for over a decade. That solar investment has been now given to QLD, probably to try and buy a vote in a hostile state. Our renewables investment so far had been a sham. Victoria produces enough renewable emergy to run the desal plant, that is being built by the beach FFS.

 

LOL, and there are no stake holders in the climate change movement!

PMSL, some people are complete suckers.

 

LOL Oxyboy, the big corps must love you, which one do you belong to, or have shares in or work for?

 

So we fix our problems, I suppose cut down on taking refugees too,

What the heck do you think will happen when the rest of the world sees us, They are overpopulated, hungry etc.

They will come and we wont be able to stop them.

Wake up before it's too late