Fuel tax excise was put in place to help pay for roads. Farmers and miners don't use roads, therefore the diesel fuel excise rebate. If you're trying to make an argument for 'fossil fuel industry subsidies' then this is an easy target for people who don't think too much.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajph.12986

Plus one on that paper, worth the read and was a bit of an eye-opener on the power of the fossil fuel industry and how much they actually contribute to the public coffers. This may be old news to some, but I had not read much on the premise that "Australia is not so much structurally dependent on the fossil fuel industry, as the fossil fuel industry is structurally dependent on the Australian Government and Australian taxpayers."

For example:"...the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conservatively estimates the total value of Australian fossil fuel subsidies to be around $65 billion per annum. The size of the subsidies is at least comparable to, and in any given year potentially in excess of, the royalties and taxes plus investment estimated by the Minerals Council Australia..."

Perhaps that's not so hard to do when:
"Origin Energy, Inpex, and Chevron paid no tax at all..." and the top 8 greenhouse gas emitters paid tax at the rate 0.8%.

Those industries aren't paying their way, but they do provide a lot of employment opportunities and, especially in the regions, hmm apparently not.

" ...mining contributes less than 2 per cent of Australia's total workforce, while energy accounts for around 1 per cent.
official Australian Bureau of Statistics census data indicates that Sydney and Melbourne, not regional Australia, have the highest density of mining jobs..."

The paper goes on to look at the mining lobby groups, the Greenhouse Mafia, the complicity of the repeatedly demonstrably corrupt big four accounting firms and governments in greater detail. I thought the Koch Brothers were the epitome of amoral corporate capitalist behaviour (for example www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics) but this look in our own backyard was rather depressing.

Select to expand quote

KiteWindnSurf said..
Fuel tax excise was put in place to help pay for roads. Farmers and miners don't use roads, therefore the diesel fuel excise rebate. If you're trying to make an argument for 'fossil fuel industry subsidies' then this is an easy target for people who don't think too much.

Not quite accurate.

It goes to general revenue, which is the fund that supports infrastructure investment.
www.aaa.asn.au/advocacy/explainers/fuel-excise-explained/

Forecast that less than 80% of FET is used for land transport development

Select to expand quote

KiteWindnSurf said..
Fuel tax excise was put in place to help pay for roads. Farmers and miners don't use roads, therefore the diesel fuel excise rebate. If you're trying to make an argument for 'fossil fuel industry subsidies' then this is an easy target for people who don't think too much.

www.sydney.edu.au/arts/about/our-people/academic-staff/john-mikler.html

Looks to me like the senior author of that article does quite a bit of thinking.

So then why does "Fuel" have this extra tax then ? (and offically part of it is even called the Road User Charge)

I'll tell ya why -

Because it was initially introduced to pay for roads. And nobody has ever changed that, except they now rob money out of it to pay for everything else. That's an issue for those receiving the revenue to address, not those paying it.

So if this is true, then why is there this special tax on diesel, petrol, biofuel used as a fuel (not a chemical additive) and LPG, if it has nothing to do with climate change or revenue to pay for publically funded infrstructure on which it is used, and nothing else has anything similar.

I'll tell ya why -

Because it is just some legacy tax with no relevance, initally intended to pay for roads but now with little logic. Hell, even the potato levy is spent on biosecurity for potato growing.

Electricty is a fuel. That is rebated to zero for everyone. So if everyone switched to EVs then the amount of the fuel excise and the road user charge spent on roads would be zero and the actual amount spent would be ... zero ?

So I get calling for reform of the fuel excise. Turn it into a consumption or waste generation tax like the land fill levy, or convert it to a full road user charge like other nations do. But calling a non-tax on miners a 'subsidy to the fossil fuel industry', while ignoring the same rebate given to anyone else who operates under the same conditions, still seems like a long stretch driven more by some ideological opposition to the mining industry than any level of sane rationalisation.

Although I guess it is the populist way to look at things.

I'm genuinely struggling to see how subsidising renewable energy infrastructure is resulting in higher cost for consumers?

Do I need more coffee, or have i had too much?

Is it, that as renewables gain greater market share, the coal and gas plants will be affected. The increase in idle periods power during peak renewables supply makes it harder for these businesses? Therefore they need to charge more when there is demand?

I think Carantoc mentioned something along those lines above.

How much of what I pay for keeping my beer cold is due to increasing cost of production for Coal and Gas?

How much of it is due to the specific costs involved in establishing a new power harvesting enterprise and distributing that energy?

Now that I think of it, I wonder why large scale battery technology isn't further along?

Surely it would be more efficient to run your power generation systems at as close to optimal efficiency as possible?
Have that geared or set below maximum generation potential, high enough above off peak generation to store excees in batteries but low enough to allow for surges in extreme cases.

So instead of having to surge or ramp generation up and down to cover peak times, the batteries cover that short period of time.

I understand technology has come a long way in a few short decades, but has that really been the limitation?

My take, is that many previous Governments couldn't or would not create a viable energy policy. so suppliers could plan their long term strategy. There could have been the infrastructure in place, to support renewables. There could have been enough gas reserved to run quick responding power stations.
The main problem now is that coal powered stations can't respond quickly enough to fast changing renewable fluctuations.

There was a report done on potential pumped hydro, there are plenty of sites on the East coast, close to existing infra structure, that could be up and running now if it had started early enough.
But we had that dickhead up in parliament waving his lump of coal around instead.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I'm genuinely struggling to see how subsidising renewable energy infrastructure is resulting in higher cost for consumers?

I have no idea exactly how that works either. I think it is probably a bit of a stretch claim on a consequence of a consequence of a consequence basis several times removed than a directly attributal effect.

But then I didn't watch cammd's video. Maybe if I did I'd find out.

But why bother ? this is Seabreeze and myscreename needs at least somebody to present nonsense opinion and not facts. So while pnl is sin-binned I am happy to step up.



Is it, that as renewables gain greater market share, the coal and gas plants will be affected. The increase in idle periods power during peak renewables supply makes it harder for these businesses? Therefore they need to charge more when there is demand

I think that is broadly true, but also the increasing downtime of the old coal plants are meaning that during times when renewables are not producing there is less capacity in the market and so the spot price rises. Most gas plants are better at ramping up and down than most coal plants, but neither have ever been designed to do so, they have been designed to run at a much more steady state than they are now required to do so.

Could a new gas plant be designed in the future to be cheaper and more efficent at providing back-up to renewables ? Dunno, maybe, I'd guess probably yes, but even then the back-up requirement is going to change quite a bit in the future so maybe not that much better.

Could batteries do it ? Theoretically yep, best things for it. Unfortunately at present the capacity they have is ****e. or less than ****e. Could a new battery in the future be better ? Good enough to backup solar and wind without anything else ? Dunno, maybe, but I doubt it. If you look at the gains over time since Tesla invented the first battery and project that forward, even with a mis-represented 'hockey-stick' polynominal projection, I wouldn't bet the lights on it.

Could the renewables provide backup to the non-renewables ? Maybe, but other than the fact that you are not then using the lowest generating cost source all the time, generally the peak demands don't occur when peak renewable generation occurs and you can never rely on renewable to be there at anytime.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
. So while pnl is sin-binned I am happy to step up.

I'm sorry Carantoc, but you are doing an absolute shyte job of stepping up for pnl. Way too much logical thinking and consideration of nuance. Not enough links to bizarre videos or dodgy websites. Consider yourself admonished.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I'm genuinely struggling to see how subsidising renewable energy infrastructure is resulting in higher cost for consumers?

Do I need more coffee, or have i had too much?

Is it, that as renewables gain greater market share, the coal and gas plants will be affected. The increase in idle periods power during peak renewables supply makes it harder for these businesses? Therefore they need to charge more when there is demand?

I think Carantoc mentioned something along those lines above.

How much of what I pay for keeping my beer cold is due to increasing cost of production for Coal and Gas?

How much of it is due to the specific costs involved in establishing a new power harvesting enterprise and distributing that energy?

Its not the subsidies that are driving up the cost to consumers its the system, the subsidies are just helping to create the more expensive system faster.

If you genuinely want to gain a greater understanding of how the Energy market works spend 20 minutes and watch doco I posted to start this thread off. In goes into some detail to explain how the whole energy market works in Australia. Its an overly complicated monster that's basically helping the rich get richer why the everyday Aussie gets poorer and our country gets weaker.

Pay some attention to the interview with the CEO of Woodside, "a head scratcher" was one very understated description she used to describe some current policies on gas.

Then watch the most recent 3 minute video I posted that explains why Twiggy Forest is doing everything he can to make Australia dependant on importing gas that makes it more expensive than just using our own. If you cant spend 3 minutes then your not genuinely struggling to understand.

This isn't me just being a RWNJ on Seabreeze, the average Aussie is getting screwed.

Hmmmm "Twiggy Forest is doing everything he can to make Australia dependant on importing gas"
Really?
He is building one (1) Import facility. There are still plenty onshore facilities and projects out there that it will have to compete with.

Is this forcing us to import Gas? No
Is this forcing us to rely on imported Gas at a higher cost? No
Does it make Imported Gas a bit easier to access when the domestic supply drives up energy prices? Yes

Oh No!!! The Government is funding infrastructure support for Renewable Energy!!!
The Government Must Not Prop Up Energy Projects that can't be fully privately backed is essentially what they are saying.

Shame there are so many other projects out there for Oil, Coal and Gas that have Government Funding, subsidies and underwriting for infrastructure, exploration and development.

Of Course the government is going to have to support Renewables in the first few decades of their development. The State and Federal Governments essentially fully funded the establishment of the Energy infrastructure early last century, establishing an environment for Privately owned companies to be successful in taking over (with Government support etc.)
Now the Government is supporting a whole new industry being edeveloped to a point where it will be able to compete against the Established energy producers, and people argue as though this is bad?

Governments invest and support new and developing technologies all the time, why is it different for Energy?

Oh, and Mr Morrisons "argument from ignorance"? Where he says "at the moment there is no private interest in backing any sort of renewable energy development on its own two feet. You can see any example you want, I can't find a single example of a major investment decision being made without some sort of underwriting from federal or state government"
As the Director for Energy Research for the CIS I would have thought he would look harder.
Just because he can't find any, doesn't mean they aren't there.

In the same statemen he also implies that there isn't any interest for private funding of renewable energy. "at the moment a lot is being made of there being soem sort of huge pipeline, this kind of massive amount of market interest in investing in renewable energy. That is quite simply not true"

Really? maybe I should google "biggest private investment in renewables australia" and see what comes up?

Turns out that there are loads of investors, even my Superannuation fund is putting money into Renewable Projects.
Apparently there is a global drive as other countries and jurisdictions push companies to green up their portfolios, so they're looking to invest in projects in Australia.

Some of them (this bit is crazy) even appear to be Fully Privately Funded! Well at least as far as I can tell, I even had a quick look through the CEFC site to see if they said anything about funding things like Sun Cable and Quintora.
Maybe someone can find where the Government is footing the bill for those projects?

So, the video:
Didn't really give me an indication of how some people are getting rich by gorging themselves on government subsidies.
Didn't give me any indication that how the Government supporting the development of new technology and industries is bad. Especially when the Government is still supporting and funding Coal, Oil and Gas projects? (How dare the government fund gas projects Twiggy!!)

(Also, unless the Government makes the future Nuclear Energy system fully state owned you can guarantee the same thing is going to happen).

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Hmmmm "Twiggy Forest is doing everything he can to make Australia dependant on importing gas"
Really?
He is building one (1) Import facility. There are still plenty onshore facilities and projects out there that it will have to compete with.

Is this forcing us to import Gas? No
Is this forcing us to rely on imported Gas at a higher cost? No
Does it make Imported Gas a bit easier to access when the domestic supply drives up energy prices? Yes

Oh No!!! The Government is funding infrastructure support for Renewable Energy!!!
The Government Must Not Prop Up Energy Projects that can't be fully privately backed is essentially what they are saying.

Shame there are so many other projects out there for Oil, Coal and Gas that have Government Funding, subsidies and underwriting for infrastructure, exploration and development.

Of Course the government is going to have to support Renewables in the first few decades of their development. The State and Federal Governments essentially fully funded the establishment of the Energy infrastructure early last century, establishing an environment for Privately owned companies to be successful in taking over (with Government support etc.)
Now the Government is supporting a whole new industry being edeveloped to a point where it will be able to compete against the Established energy producers, and people argue as though this is bad?

Governments invest and support new and developing technologies all the time, why is it different for Energy?

Oh, and Mr Morrisons "argument from ignorance"? Where he says "at the moment there is no private interest in backing any sort of renewable energy development on its own two feet. You can see any example you want, I can't find a single example of a major investment decision being made without some sort of underwriting from federal or state government"
As the Director for Energy Research for the CIS I would have thought he would look harder.
Just because he can't find any, doesn't mean they aren't there.

In the same statemen he also implies that there isn't any interest for private funding of renewable energy. "at the moment a lot is being made of there being soem sort of huge pipeline, this kind of massive amount of market interest in investing in renewable energy. That is quite simply not true"

Really? maybe I should google "biggest private investment in renewables australia" and see what comes up?

Turns out that there are loads of investors, even my Superannuation fund is putting money into Renewable Projects.
Apparently there is a global drive as other countries and jurisdictions push companies to green up their portfolios, so they're looking to invest in projects in Australia.

Some of them (this bit is crazy) even appear to be Fully Privately Funded! Well at least as far as I can tell, I even had a quick look through the CEFC site to see if they said anything about funding things like Sun Cable and Quintora.
Maybe someone can find where the Government is footing the bill for those projects?

So, the video:
Didn't really give me an indication of how some people are getting rich by gorging themselves on government subsidies.
Didn't give me any indication that how the Government supporting the development of new technology and industries is bad. Especially when the Government is still supporting and funding Coal, Oil and Gas projects? (How dare the government fund gas projects Twiggy!!)

(Also, unless the Government makes the future Nuclear Energy system fully state owned you can guarantee the same thing is going to happen).

Well if you can't see any indications the system is getting more expensive in the videos just check your electricity bill, maybe it will give you an indication you can see. Then again it probably won't.

Channel 7 Spotlight are doing a story on the EV manufacturing process on Sunday night, looked pretty environmentally bad in the add. Actually from the add it looks like an environmental and worker disaster.

How much evidence do people need to see before they wake up that Net Zero is a massive global scam to make rich people richer and powerful people more powerful.

Sure things look like a scam when experts in videos misrepresent what is happening. As in the latest video you linked.

EV manufacturing and Renewable development are probably going to be just as bad for the environment as Petrochemical pumping, refining and transport.
Are the EV manufacturers being held to a higher standard other automotive plants in the same areas?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Hmmmm "Twiggy Forest is doing everything he can to make Australia dependant on importing gas"
Really?
He is building one (1) Import facility. There are still plenty onshore facilities and projects out there that it will have to compete with.

Australia is a substantial net exporter of energy, including coal and natural gas, with net exports equating to over two-thirds of production. Around 89% of black coal energy production was exported in 2022-23, as was around 73% of domestic natural gas production and 97% of crude oil production.

Why do we need to import gas. It has to be liquified and then de liquified, its inherently more expensive.

It has to be transported in a ship that burns oil. The environmental benefits of doing that are plain to see right.

So why do we need to import gas? Can you answer that simple question with a simple answer, probably not, its probably a really complicated answer that requires a deep understanding of markets and technology and historical context.

That's the scam FFS, its obviously not an environmental benefit is it. Importing gas! why! because the more expensive fossil fuels are the better renewables look and fools keep voting to save the world.

Maybe ask the question "why do we need to import gas to that particular location? "

As you rightly point out, we produce heaps of gas domestically.

And supply and demand as an economic process is a real thing.

If we have a supply of cheaper, domestically produced gas in that region, why would generators purchase more expensive imported gas?

You're suggesting that generators are somehow going to be forced to purchase the expensive imported gas instead of the cheaper domestically produced gas.
Which goes against how the market works.

If there is a cheap gas option, no one is going to buy the expensive gas option.
No one is forcing generators to buy the expensive imported gas while we export gas out of that region.

So why does Twiggy think it's financially to establish an import facility in that specific region?

Good question

Maybes it's because people are forecasting LNG shortages in Victoria in the coming years?

Maybe it's to try and prevent another cost of gas freakout that the east coast endured a few years ago.

Maybe you should read up about it?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..


Good question

Maybes it's because people are forecasting LNG shortages in Victoria in the coming years?

Maybe it's to try and prevent another cost of gas freakout that the east coast endured a few years ago.

Maybe you should read up about it?

Maybe its because the shortage of gas available for domestic supply is a result of people believing renewables will provide all our energy needs into the future and have voted to stop future fossil fuel projects being developed.

That's not a maybe, that's a fact.

Now, who's busy telling everyone renewables are the answer to our future energy needs, probably the people who stand to gain from them and the fools who believe it.

Bass Coast oil and gas fields supply around 40% of eastern Australia domestic demand.

Currently projected to halve that supply by 2028 as the fields run out.

What plans are there to replace that supply domestically?

Transport Gas across the entire NW to SE transit overland?

Or bring it round on a ship?

Or develop new gas fields somewhere else?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Bass Coast oil and gas fields supply around 40% of eastern Australia domestic demand.

Currently projected to halve that supply by 2028 as the fields run out.

What plans are there to replace that supply domestically?

Transport Gas across the entire NW to SE transit overland?

Or bring it round on a ship?

Or develop new gas fields somewhere else?

great, you have identified the problem

Why does the problem exist when Australia is a exporter of gas
There is gas in the ground in NSW and Victoria

This is a problem created by the left promoting an idealistic dream of a renewable nirvana, that isn't realistic.

So welded to the ideology that facts don't get show in. Next we'll be hearing men can get pregnant.

Sooooo one developed source of energy running out.
So we should replace it with the same thing that will suffer the same problem? .

And you're saying we should establish new gas field projects across NSW and Victoria?

Surely that will cost money, right?
You're OK with government subsidising oil and gas infrastructure development but not renewables?
Who is going to bear the cost of setting up these new projects?


Also, what's on the land above those gas fields right now?
Maybe there's a reason we haven't developed them already, because I'm sure it's cheaper and easier to drill and pump on land rather offshore?


What's the problem with diversifying our energy supply?
Surely limiting us to essentially 1 source leaves us all vulnerable to gouging and profiteering?
Seriously, they're actively fighting against competition getting a toehold.

If they're so confident that imported Gas is going to be more expensive, then it's obviously not going to be competitive against domestic suppliers.

But I reckon they're scared that imported gas is actually competitive due to the dynamic global environment created by what's happening in Europe and USA.
And then that's going to affect their stranglehold on our energy supply.

Hope the Nationals backflip is the beginning of the end for the Net Zero scam.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Hope the Nationals backflip is the beginning of the end for the Net Zero scam.

Coalition are super relevant right now. Many of the lucid people left in the 'white shoe brigade' are absolutely outraged with our PM wearing that Joy Division T-Shirt when getting off that plane yesterday.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

cammd said..
Hope the Nationals backflip is the beginning of the end for the Net Zero scam.

Coalition are super relevant right now. Many of the lucid people left in the 'white shoe brigade' are absolutely outraged with our PM wearing that Joy Division T-Shirt when getting off that plane yesterday.

Never heard of "Joy Division" before your post. Its an off name for a band based on its historical context of nazi sex slavery.

I get your point its hardly the most pressing issue of the day but I guess you would expect a PM to have better taste than that.

Interesting reading the Guardians take on it. I doubt it would have the same attitude if the sex slaves were not Jews or the PM was conservative.

Imagine Tony Abbot or worse Trump wearing a t shirt of a band named after some horrific thing the KKK did. The Guardian would be having kittens, probably the whole MSM would join in. You probably would be as well. Different standards hey, I get it.

I asked AI about this and it generated the current government's net zero strategy:

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
....I doubt it would have the same attitude if the sex slaves were not Jews or the PM was conservative.

My recollection from growing up with Joy Division, New Order and the rest of that rubbish 'music' and culture, is that it was rubbish - the name comes from a book, but the book was a novel and not true, i.e. there was no evidence that there were sex slave Jews in Joy Divisions. But it didn't matter that it was (what we would now call) 'fake news', because it was what some people wanted to beLIEve.

But I am not sure - maybe it was a school yard myth that it was a myth ?


Edit : Ah yes, I see, The Guardian is reporting the same, the Joy Divisions were not true. Although if it is confirmed as true by the Guardian, then it is probably false. Probably get a correction tomorrow.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

cammd said..
....I doubt it would have the same attitude if the sex slaves were not Jews or the PM was conservative.

My recollection from growing up with Joy Division, New Order and the rest of that rubbish 'music' and culture, is that it was rubbish - the name comes from a book, but the book was a novel and not true, i.e. there was no evidence that there were sex slave Jews in Joy Divisions. But it didn't matter that it was (what we would now call) 'fake news', because it was what some people wanted to beLIEve.

But I am not sure - maybe it was a school yard myth that it was a myth ?

Oh ok, pleased to hear that, it would be pretty off for a PM to wear a tshirt of a band named after something horrific that actually happened.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..


Edit : Ah yes, I see, The Guardian is reporting the same, the Joy Divisions were not true. Although if it is confirmed as true by the Guardian, then it is probably false. Probably get a correction tomorrow.

Strange times, the Guardian refuting "fake news" about Nazi's.

Select to expand quote

cammd said...
Strange times, the Guardian refuting "fake news" about Nazi's.

I guess there is only one group of people the Guardian hates more than Nazis....

Pretty sure if you had to criticise Albo's T shirt he was wearing on return from a trip to the US to spruik Aussie interests and promote Aussie exports to the world, it is that he didn't wear an Aussie band's mech.

Plenty of pseudo-punk Aussie bands from the same era as Joy Division.

He could have worn Klu Klux Frankenstein, or maybe White Noise's The First Assault album cover ?

What about Aussie film merchandise ? Maybe a celebration of Romper Stomper would have been more in order ?

Maybe if he wanted to celebrate US-Aussie cooperation he could have worn an original KISS T shirt ?

Yeah good points, I wonder what the Guardian would have to say about Pauline Hanson sporting a Romper Stomper t shirt.