Select to expand quote

elmo said..
Well here's what the Australian government subsidises the oil and coal industries

australiainstitute.org.au/post/57-1b-record-breaking-fossil-fuel-subsides-following-climate-election/

I'm not knocking the windfarm, but these figures repeatedly quoted for 'subsidies' are somewhat embellished if not deliberately intended to mislead.

About 75% of the total quoted is paying 18c per litre or zero cents per litre (not 46c per litre) for the fuel excise duty, a tax imposed for best part of 100 years to fund public roads by road users. In terms of this fuel excise these companies are subject to the exact same tax regime as every other individual and entity in the country is.

Fossil fuel primary producers pay more in mineral / petroleum royalties then they don't pay in fuel excise. Any fuel tax would also be offset against corporate income tax, so raising it would simply reduce the tax payable somewhere else. Hence if you removed these fossil fuel entities from the economy there would be a net reduction in government revenue.

The world may well be a better place without them, but calling the same tax regime across all industry as a "fossil fuel industry subsidy", that would not generate more government revenue if it was "removed", seems to me to be deliberately twisting things to embellish your point.

Equally you could say corporate tax is 27.5%, but it could be 50% so this a business subsidy to wind farm companies, despite every business being subject to the same arrangement.

And then other things on that list don't really stack up. Aside from the headline says $57 billion, then the examples are in the tens of millions, or even down to one million figures - something like the Dampier wharf upgrade may well be used by oil and gas producers, but it is also viewed by industry as a potential import terminal for wind generator blades and towers. So highlighting it is one use only is quite frankly cheating the figures.

Select to expand quote

segler said..
Electric cars are not selling in the USA. The car manufacturers are having to re-think their strategy. This has been big in the news.

The reason is pretty clear. Unlike Europe, where you can cross 5 international borders in an afternoon, the USA (like Australia) has wide open distances with chargers few and far between. EVs don't work in this scenario. The CEO of Ford made a long drive cross-country in an EV and reported on the experience. He said it was not good.

My daughter bought the long-range version of the Tesla Model Y. She sold it 7 months later because it would not deliver the advertised range. Not even close. 250 miles is not 400 miles.

They are fine for city driving, but not cross-country. You see Teslas all over the streets of Seattle, but you rarely see one on the freeway between Seattle and Spokane. If you drive an EV in the California central valley, you are driving a diesel.

I was in Southern California a few weeks back and was astounded at the number of EVs running around, mostly Tesla's. Obviously an anecdote not data. I used Uber about a dozen times and half of them were EVs. I did several journey over a hundred miles and the drivers didn't seem phased at all.

Petrol prices Australia: What is the fuel excise and how does it change the price of petrol? | Explainer (9news.com.au)

Select to expand quote

segler said..

My daughter bought the long-range version of the Tesla Model Y. She sold it 7 months later because it would not deliver the advertised range. Not even close. 250 miles is not 400 miles

If their data tells us the range of the EV is 400 miles and you believe its range is only 250 miles then you qualify as a CT.........welcome to the club

Ther data to the likes of FN and Remery is gospel, so in future please do not question their religion.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..Ther data to the likes of FN and Remery is gospel, so in future please do not question their religion.

Your ideas are intriguing - how do I sign up to your newsletter?

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said

If their data tells us the range of the EV is 400 miles and you believe its range is only 250 miles then you qualify as a CT.........welcome to the club

Ther data to the likes of FN and Remery is gospel, so in future please do not question their religion.

You mean the religion of data, facts, evidence? I like that religion.

In God we trust. All others bring data.

Damn Deming never read Dawkins

Believe what i tell you not what you see - line from a movie where a wife catches her husband in bed with another man. The husband responds by denying he is bed with another woman

250 miles to 400 miles is not much difference anyway.

I had to go back to the first post to remind me of what the discussion was really about. The post brought up the issue of how their favourite spot was being threatened by development, the installation of wind generators. The location was not all that far from Sydney, another place where the 'locals' were forced to leave their place for the greater good of the settlement. Many virtuous Australians condemn that as an invasion yet are equally incensed that a local would be upset when people outside of his community decide that they must take over that space for their purposes. Justification, the fear of climate change based upon the infallible reasoning of our scientific gods seems to be the morality that decides the outcome. Is it just pseudoscience, fear of tomorrow or the burning conscience inflamed by an unbalanced brainwashed teenager from Scandinavia that thinks she has all the answers.

Yeah, who knows... Climate change happened naturally, for instance the Ice Age but it's not that hard to imagine that these emissions of burning fossil fuels have a dramatic impact on people and nature. It's not that these emmisions just disappear right?

Compare it to cooking food inside or burning a bonfire in your living room. It won't get pretty or comfortable. Most of the stuff that we burn (including from your petrol or diesel powered engine) stays in the atmosphere, it's trapped and there is no extractor hood like in your kitchen. So it's probably not a terrible idea to prevent more emissions from getting into the atmosphere before we kill ourselves and nature. But yeah, that's only in two generations so who cares right? Not everyone apparently...

Maybe a wind park is not the best answer, we'll find that out later but it's surely better than a cole plant. Fair enough if it affects your local sailing spot to protest and find a more suitable location but does it?

I dunno about you, but I always sail 10 km offshore

www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/wind-farms-misinformation-peter-dutton-climate-change-20231101-p5egvn.html

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
I dunno about you, but I always sail 10 km offshore

www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/wind-farms-misinformation-peter-dutton-climate-change-20231101-p5egvn.html

I hope you take the flares and walkie talkie with you

I wonder if any of these people that are against it because they think it will ruin their views have actually thought it through. Even if they could see them, wouldn't it be more interesting to see than just a static horizon?

Is it another political football where someone just wants to tear down a good idea? If the numbers stack up it should be built and surely this fits in with long term goals?

From that article:
"When you look at the whales and the mother and the calf that we saw out there, the dolphins - all of that is at risk because there's no environmental consideration of what these huge wind turbines, 260 to 280 metres out of the water, will mean for that wildlife and for the environment."

I don't know about others, but particularly when sailing at Port Stephens, I have had dolphins jump up in front of me when I have been planing along. Death to them all. Sorry, I mean, they seem to be incredibly good at getting out of your way when they are so close, so I think if they are dumb enough to strike a static fixed pylon in the water, then maybe it's not a bad thing. After a few generations, the idiots will be bred out and the ones with working sonar will be fine.

Above was said, "250 miles to 400 miles is not much difference anyway."

It is when you are trying to make a leg of 300 miles on a fresh charge and then run out of battery with no charger within 100 miles. This happens a lot in Montana and Wyoming. It happened to my daughter in eastern Washington state. Even the Ford CEO had range anxiety in the midwest.

Also a 45 minute fast-charge takes a lot longer than a 10 minute gas up. People don't like the waiting. The Ford CEO didn't. No wonder the EVs are not selling outside of Europe.

The state of Wyoming has considered banning EVs. Not only because of insufficient range, but also because of their super-high torque on icy roads. Drivers keep slipping off the roads in winter even with anti-slip drivetrains.

You qualify as a wild CT Segler for not supporting their data of a 400 mile range from the manufacturer.

At least according to remery and FN.

Their V data from the last 3 years has now been proven to be outright lies so exaggerating a trifle about the range of EV barely raises an eyebrow.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
You qualify as a wild CT Segler for not supporting their data of a 400 mile range from the manufacturer.

At least according to remery and FN.

Their V data from the last 3 years has now been proven to be outright lies so exaggerating a trifle about the range of EV barely raises an eyebrow.

No, a normal person would say 'yeah, obviously they are lying about the range and its probably in controlled situations'. 'Typical marketing'.

A CT'er would claim that it was based on alien technology or that there really are batteries available that give a range of 1000 miles and can be recharged in 2 minutes and that they are keeping them from us to control us.

ICE cars don't get the mileage on the sticker either if you drive fast. The wind resistance rises with the square of speed.
A quick search for the speed the WLTP test is done at gets this
The WLTP cycle (WLTC) consists of a series of starts, accelerations, and stops in a controlled environment over a set period of time. The test is carried out at an ambient temperature of 23?. The average speed of the cycle is 46.5 km/h.
At highway speed wind resistance is 4X more.

Select to expand quote

segler said..
Above was said, "250 miles to 400 miles is not much difference anyway."

It is when you are trying to make a leg of 300 miles on a fresh charge and then run out of battery with no charger within 100 miles. This happens a lot in Montana and Wyoming. It happened to my daughter in eastern Washington state. Even the Ford CEO had range anxiety in the midwest.

Also a 45 minute fast-charge takes a lot longer than a 10 minute gas up. People don't like the waiting. The Ford CEO didn't. No wonder the EVs are not selling outside of Europe.

The state of Wyoming has considered banning EVs. Not only because of insufficient range, but also because of their super-high torque on icy roads. Drivers keep slipping off the roads in winter even with anti-slip drivetrains.

How true. I went from a high NM petrol V8 to a Subaru Impreza as a ski car. Leaving aside the AWD, the lower power but gradual feed in makes for a much safer and more relaxing journey. I think the EVs touting big NMs are plain silly in the hands of the average driver (like me) in challenging conditions. Even with an average car, with a ham fisted driver, add ice and a hill and there is a toboggan either going forwards, backwards, or sideways. Yes in bad conditions there are snow chains or maybe snow tyres. But the freeze thaw cycle on especially a 'clear day' deserves respect.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Certain 'characters' on here are incapable of coming to terms that the MSM have duped them.

Global Warming an obvious scam that their precious ego will never concede was a con.

Electric cars another.

Farting cows having significant influence on temperature

Too funny.

We know you're a liar. You've proved it many times over. Not that, but you're also a fool who is suckered in easily. You proved it when you lied about the "scientists" who you claimed signed a document when you were too stupid and too gullible to check the facts.

You get your links from the MSM. Sky and Youtube are as mainstream as you can get. Both are multinationals run by multibillionaires. That's the essence of being the mainstream, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

It must be sad to be like you, so stupid that you can only try to make a point by lying.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
The difference being for society to function we sort of need cars.

Coal and gas power stations are working just fine. I see little pollution in this country from them.

We do not need these killing machines.

Were the birds able to speak....

If you play yourself, you lose your humanity.......and your fate is sealed.

It is then a slippery slope for society to embrace other dark practices.

If you don't see what coal mines and power stations are doing then you're blind or an idiot. Have you ever been to the NSW Hunter Valley coal area, for example? Have you ever been on a coal mine for work?

The reality - which is something you're unaware of - is that vast quantities of animal environment is dug up, run across the country in machines that only the most stupid person possible can't see are polluting, and then put into ships that churn around the ocean and throw diesel exhaust into the air. I assume you've never been in a goods engine and are too stupid to know that they DO pollute. That is a fact that you are as usual just being a liar when you imply they don't.

Are you a vegetarian, or do you happily eat some animals but use others as a political football?

When are you going to learn honesty instead of lying all the time?

Select to expand quote

Maddlad said..
All i know is that i was told in the 70s that we'd all be underwater from the polar icecaps melting by now, and yet my house thats 10 miles from the coast is still not a waterfront property, so i feel like I've been lied to. When am i getting my waterfront property you lieing bastards!!

Who told you that? There's a lot of BS about what was said.

Always predicting something stupid.

Select to expand quote

elk said..


Great men signing off on the latest climate change agreement, saving the planet one EV fire at a time.
Thermal runaway is a real bitch.

Why do you lie? Is it because you're dishonest or because you are too stupid to be able to make honest comments?

Select to expand quote

elk said..


3 car carrier ships have been destroyed transporting them

Which ships are you talking about?

www.drive.com.au/news/electric-car-cargo-ship-fire-safety-concerns/

Insurance companies are recognising the risk.Even if ignition source is unknown.
Maybe tow them on a barge or carry them on a tipping deck and dump them overboard.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

We know you're a liar. You've proved it many times over. Not that, but you're also a fool who is suckered in easily. You proved it when you lied about the "scientists" who you claimed signed a document when you were too stupid and too gullible to check the facts.

You get your links from the MSM. Sky and Youtube are as mainstream as you can get. Both are multinationals run by multibillionaires. That's the essence of being the mainstream, but you are too dishonest to admit it.

It must be sad to be like you, so stupid that you can only try to make a point by lying.

He does have a point.

Select to expand quote

Rango said..
www.drive.com.au/news/electric-car-cargo-ship-fire-safety-concerns/

Insurance companies are recognising the risk.Even if ignition source is unknown.
Maybe tow them on a barge or carry them on a tipping deck and dump them overboard.

Wrong. Let's count the ways;

1- The International Union of Maritime Insurance has carried out a study on EVs in ships. It states"The number of BEV fires is currently lower than that of ICEV fires (relative to the total number of vehicles)." (my emphasis). The report also dismissed other myths about EVs. As the famous insurance outfit Lloyds says "no fire onboard a ro-ro or PCTC has been proven to have been caused by a factory-new EV".

So there is is NO ro-ro or car carrier fires proven to be caused by new evs. NONE. Why would the insurers be lying about this? They would make more money by talking up the risk so they could raise premiums.

2 - The ship you linked to was NOT destroyed by fire as was claimed and as I asked about. It was brought into dock, unloaded and returned to the owners. The report of the investigation into the cause has NOT been released.

3- Claims about EVs being the cause ignore the fact that fossil fuel cars also cause similar incidents;

* In July 2023, two firefighters died when the ro-ro car carrier Grande Costa D'Avorio burned and sank with NO EVs on board.

* a diesel car is said to be the cause of the October 10 fire in a London carpark that burned 1500 cars and injured firemen.

* In June 2020 the car carrier Hoegh Xiamen burned and was lost after a PETROL car's battery caught fire;

* In June 2015 the ro-ro Courage burned and was destroyed after a fire caused by a PETROL car's ABS system.

* In 2017 the ro-ro Honour burned and was severely damaged after a fire caused by the starter solenoid of an INTERNAL COMBUSTION car.

* In May 2019 the ro-ro Grande Europa burned and sank after a fire blamed on an INTERNAL COMBUSTION car's battery.

When top names in insurance point out that there is NO evidence of a higher risk when EVs are being transported then why claim that they do? Even the link you used did NOT say that there was any proof that the fire had been caused by an EV. There still isn't.

You cannot logically rely on a second hand source that does NOT say that an EV caused the fire as proof that an EV caused the fire. You can, however, do proper research and look up the official 700 page report of the NTSB into the Hoegh Xiamen fire, for example, and see that it was caused by a petrol vehicle.

^^^So the good news is that if the wind farm off Wollongong gets built, car carriers coming into the port will be able to pull up beside a turbine on the way in to charge up the EVs pre delivery

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Maddlad said..
All i know is that i was told in the 70s that we'd all be underwater from the polar icecaps melting by now, and yet my house thats 10 miles from the coast is still not a waterfront property, so i feel like I've been lied to. When am i getting my waterfront property you lieing bastards!!

Who told you that? There's a lot of BS about what was said.

Anyone who does not agree with Chris 249 and the MSM is a liar.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Rango said..
www.drive.com.au/news/electric-car-cargo-ship-fire-safety-concerns/

Insurance companies are recognising the risk.Even if ignition source is unknown.
Maybe tow them on a barge or carry them on a tipping deck and dump them overboard.

Wrong. Let's count the ways;

1- The International Union of Maritime Insurance has carried out a study on EVs in ships. It states"The number of BEV fires is currently lower than that of ICEV fires (relative to the total number of vehicles)." (my emphasis). The report also dismissed other myths about EVs. As the famous insurance outfit Lloyds says "no fire onboard a ro-ro or PCTC has been proven to have been caused by a factory-new EV".

So there is is NO ro-ro or car carrier fires proven to be caused by new evs. NONE. Why would the insurers be lying about this? They would make more money by talking up the risk so they could raise premiums.

2 - The ship you linked to was NOT destroyed by fire as was claimed and as I asked about. It was brought into dock, unloaded and returned to the owners. The report of the investigation into the cause has NOT been released.

3- Claims about EVs being the cause ignore the fact that fossil fuel cars also cause similar incidents;

* In July 2023, two firefighters died when the ro-ro car carrier Grande Costa D'Avorio burned and sank with NO EVs on board.

* a diesel car is said to be the cause of the October 10 fire in a London carpark that burned 1500 cars and injured firemen.

* In June 2020 the car carrier Hoegh Xiamen burned and was lost after a PETROL car's battery caught fire;

* In June 2015 the ro-ro Courage burned and was destroyed after a fire caused by a PETROL car's ABS system.

* In 2017 the ro-ro Honour burned and was severely damaged after a fire caused by the starter solenoid of an INTERNAL COMBUSTION car.

* In May 2019 the ro-ro Grande Europa burned and sank after a fire blamed on an INTERNAL COMBUSTION car's battery.

When top names in insurance point out that there is NO evidence of a higher risk when EVs are being transported then why claim that they do? Even the link you used did NOT say that there was any proof that the fire had been caused by an EV. There still isn't.

You cannot logically rely on a second hand source that does NOT say that an EV caused the fire as proof that an EV caused the fire. You can, however, do proper research and look up the official 700 page report of the NTSB into the Hoegh Xiamen fire, for example, and see that it was caused by a petrol vehicle.

Did'nt say an EV caused the fire .You're wrong.