Jump to content


Photo

Clean energy future and Carbon Tax


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 positivetennis

positivetennis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Tagline:New Member

Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:11 AM

I remember when leaded petrol was deleted and people with classic cars were concerned about what was going to happen. As we all know, lead additve became part of filling up. However these new environmental bills that were past last year may have more far reaching consequences for people with older cars. With hybred, plug-in electric cars, starting to hit the market in greater numbers in the next few years (i.e: Volt, Leaf) (Even talk of the next zed being hybred) I was wondering whether anyone had any thoughts about this. I know in other countries governmentd have been increasingly making it more difficult to register their cars, as well as offering incentives to trade in their old car if they bought a new fuel efficient one. There is talk in Australia of "Smart Meters in homes " , as well as "Home audits for enviro efficiency", which sounds a bit full on.  Any thoughts on this?

#2 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 15 January 2012 - 10:21 PM

For homes, I think its a good thing, they use a lot more energy than a single car.  For cars, the recognition is already there for older cars, eg. classic car and vintage car categories, plus club and rally registrations etc.  I'm not overly concerned about it until oil is no longer in use... I doubt BP, Shell and Mobil will have a bar of that any time soon and by the time it happens, our Datsuns will have fallen to bits with rust... :)


#3 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,033 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:51 PM

And the EPA will tell us that harmful additives, like zinc, in our oil is banned, as it is in the air and the oceans.
Only thing is, now, all engines will wear out faster, thus causing more and more cars to go to wreckets much earlier in life, ie no more 500,000 kms on the odometer anymore, lucky to get 80,000 out of your poisipnous battery hybrid tractor beam drive!
Where do they end up?
In landfill, and the chemicale leach out into the,,,,,,

Air we breathe and water we drink!

Good on the greenies and the EPA

#4 peter mc

peter mc

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,573 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:03 AM

just have a look at how much energy it take to make a Toyota bat car its so funny that its called a green car lol

#5 dat2kman

dat2kman

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,033 posts
  • Location:Newport Waters Qld
  • Tagline:going sailing, see ya later!

Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:10 AM

Yeah, energy sucker cars!

I chew nails, and spit rust, drink my avgas, fart methane in copious quantities.

Whats that song "You're an asshole"??

Yeah, thats me, right, yeah, greenie EPA Sea Sheperd dudley bloody do-rigjts!

#6 Agno

Agno

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,310 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:18 AM

My car which is 35 years old and does 16L/100 will always be more carbon neutral than a brand spanker electric car whose batteries have a life expectancy of 10 years and are loaded with chemicals.

Seems I was born in the wrong era... Ah well nobody said modern Engineers need to be greenies  ;D

#7 Whittie

Whittie

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Location:Houston - Texas

Posted 16 January 2012 - 01:05 AM

just have a look at how much energy it take to make a Toyota bat car its so funny that its called a green car lol


It takes the average owner 120,000km to bring the prius to "carbon equivalent" to an economical petrol of the same size. It's a funny number because it's also the number that most users get to before the batteries need to be changed, making them INCREDIBLY environmentally UNFRIENDLY compared to a normal car.

But that's ok, they use less fuel to drive and are therefore good for the environment.

I'm not  putting electric vehicles down, I think they are a fantastic idea and the work being done to improve electric/battery technology is fantastic, it's just that they aren't yet as environmentally friendly as everyone touts, the opposite in fact.

#8 gav240z

gav240z

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 12,400 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com
  • Location:Sydney NSW
  • Tagline:Jack of all trades, master of none.

Posted 16 January 2012 - 05:18 AM

The lithium in batteries is recyclable, I think electric cars are good. But I don't really go in for this Hybrid shit.

I came across this Croatian guy who build a really quick BMW which he converted to electric when the old ICE blew up.
http://www.rimac-aut...eo-gallery-vp12


He has now build the Concept One which is 1 of the nicest looking Super Cars I've seen in a while.

The running cost of an electric vehicle is significantly lower than an ICE powered car, but right now they are relatively expensive along with the battery technology which is still being improved and will only continue to improve. When I think of the engines we use now they just seem so primitive compared to electric and I personally would love to build an electric powered car myself.

In fact my rotary engine decided to flood itself this weekend and I've been trying to unflood it (without much success just yet) and part of me is just over it, part of me is thinking this wouldn't happen to an EV. Now I know EV's will have their own problems, but not needing to worry about radiators (mine is leaking), intercoolers, exhuast systems, intake manifolds, valves, pistons, cylinders, camshafts, crankshafts, bearings, oil pressure, oil leaks and all the other stuff that goes along with current engines seems like a welcome change for me ;).

Of course i'll always love my vintage cars and I think oil will always be available to them, but they will become more like special occassion vehicles.

When I think of all the possibilities of integration with your mobile phone, ipad, android tablet etc.. and your EV I see lots of possibilities. Like management of range, charge status (when you're at your desk and the car is on charge), maps, navigation, music libraries etc..

I also really like this concept
http://www.extremete...or-a-day-or-two



#9 positivetennis

positivetennis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Tagline:New Member

Posted 16 January 2012 - 11:45 PM

I guess I'm concerned that we might get punished for owning an old car by being made to pay more taxes, higher rego and green slips, restricted usage, making owningship less attractive. I know this sounds a little dramatic, but I do believe that things will get tougher. They are planning to do home audits to rate how efficient your home is. Maybe the 240z owner in 2020 will have a\ some sought of electric motor replacement so as to comply with new emission targets.

#10 gav240z

gav240z

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 12,400 posts
  • Website:http://www.viczcar.com
  • Location:Sydney NSW
  • Tagline:Jack of all trades, master of none.

Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:44 AM

I guess I'm concerned that we might get punished for owning an old car by being made to pay more taxes, higher rego and green slips, restricted usage, making owningship less attractive. I know this sounds a little dramatic, but I do believe that things will get tougher. They are planning to do home audits to rate how efficient your home is. Maybe the 240z owner in 2020 will have a\ some sought of electric motor replacement so as to comply with new emission targets.


Vintage vehicles have always been protected because they have history which is important to preserve. I doubt they would impose that on 40+ year old vehicles.

As we know they make up a very small percentage of cars on the road and hence would make very little difference having them on the road.

What I would like to see however is stricter road worthy laws and testing in Australia. Here in Ireland the UK there is compulsory testing every 1-2 years ( depending on vehicle age) as part of the test there is an emissions test done. This would make many second hand vehicles in Australia drop in value as many would be unfit for general road use and people who have to maintain their vehicles to a higher standard.

Having cars in better tune would reduce emissions, whilst at the same time making newer cars such as electric more attractive. New electrics being lower maintenance etc.. and also attracting less road tax due to no emissions.

40 + year old vehicles could be exempt from this form of testing (as they are here) and will always appeal to nostalgic rev-heads like us. But let's face it most of us would drive a boring electric to work and do all the wear and tear on that rather than drive our 40+ year old classics into work everyday etc.. So they will remain a speciality use vehicle.

#11 saxon

saxon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:59 AM

Global Warming doesn't exist. Carbon Tax can suck my balls.

#12 RB30X

RB30X

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,981 posts
  • Location:Gladstone QLD

Posted 17 January 2012 - 09:10 AM

Global Warming doesn't exist. Carbon Tax can suck my balls.


+1

They'll look back at us as the generation that came up with global warming (never existed), and how the government got rich for doing nothing and all the big companies left Australia just like they said they would, which caused massive unemployment.

Oh and the EPA is so two years ago.
It's DERM now. Department of environmental resorce management.

#13 nizm0zed

nizm0zed

    The 1000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,310 posts
  • Location:Canberra
  • Tagline:260z coupe in slow build, Now with RB25DE powah!!

Posted 17 January 2012 - 11:33 AM

sure its not Department of Environmental Resource Protection.
Because DERP seems a lot more appropriate to the rulings they actually come up with....

#14 saxon

saxon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:13 PM

sure its not Department of Environmental Resource Protection.
Because DERP seems a lot more appropriate to the rulings they actually come up with....


lol

#15 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:32 PM

Well, polar ice caps are melting and animals are becoming more scarce, I attribute the ice melting to a natural warming of the planet that is due to occur prior to an ice age.  As for the animals, well lets face it, there way too many humans on this planet than we can sustain, hence mass starvation in Africa etc.  Sure, there probably is enough food in the world to feed the starving and as harsh as this sounds, we can't sustain the resources to maintain that growth of population.  Its a really sad state and we have no idea just how we lucky we are to even own a Datsun, let alone have food on a plate.

But I'm going to continue to enjoy the luxuries I have, I'm here for a good time, not a long time.

#16 tbscobraZ

tbscobraZ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Sydney- Normanhurst

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:41 PM

I can't believe there are people out there that are soo blissfully ignorant and unaware of the damage being done to the in environment as we speak. Go look at the top of a coal fired power station or the tailings that mines put back into the waterways. Would you like to breathe what's coming out the top of the power station or drink from the water that is contaminated? Skeptics can go bury their heads in the sand just as long as they promise to keep them there. Climate change is not "ah we have had 2 degrees hotter on average for march", climate change is the GRADUAL changing of weather patterns and our climate due to many factors both natural and anthropogenic. Climate change is a natural phenomena however it is being accelerated by some human activities. In saying this my personal opinion is that the carbon tax is completely wrong. I have studied economics and what they are trying to do is very simple and in theory it works well, but in practice, in this economy now it is a complete nightmare. They are trying to promote structural adjustment to cleaner energy and more environmentally friendly ways of doing things. However in practice they money will not be spent on renewable energy or environmentally friendly ways of doing things rather it will just inflate prices for consumers and drive up the cost of living. If the government was serious about climate change they would reduce our reliance on mining, coal fired power stations, water recycling plants that are powered by clean energy ect. 

#17 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:08 PM

So we should all bury our heads in the sand because we have a different opinion? As you stated, the above is your opinion, not fact, so we should all bury our heads in the sand...

Fuckin Troll.

#18 tbscobraZ

tbscobraZ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Sydney- Normanhurst

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:43 PM

My personal opinion is on the Carbon Tax. Anthropogenic climate change is fact. I'm not a troll I've been apart of this forum for multiple years. Do some research. 

ā€œ...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processesā€. (Doran 2009) Taken from a skeptic site. http://www.skeptical...-consensus.htm.

"97ā€“98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"-PNAS: William R. L. Anderegga, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera. Expert credibility in climate change

http://www.garnautre...credibility.pdf



#19 sco_aus

sco_aus

    The 2000+ club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,484 posts
  • Location:Canberra, ACT
  • Tagline:Scott

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:32 AM

Making personal attacks on people with different opinions is trolling champ, regardless of your previous number of posts...  I can't be bothered finding a link to some research to prove my point because your not worth the effort.

#20 AussieZed

AussieZed

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Belconnen, Canberra

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:30 AM

True enough, personal attacks are uncool.

But this isn't just about an opinion. An opinion is whether a 240z looks better painted red or painted blue. This is about scientific facts. You don't get to have an 'opinion' on whether the Earth is flat or round - it is round, it's a simple fact.

Earlier opinions about anthropogenic climate change are at best uninformed, at worst, simply an act of denial. I am willing to guarantee that the people with those opinions haven't read the scientific literature. haven't spent any time reading broadly across the climate change debate and certainly aren't familiar with the underlying data. And don't point to a single web site that supports your views - anyone could do that for ANY point of view. I've spent the last 20 years training to understand that data - and the fact is climate change is happening and that the only logical conclusion for why it is happening at the rate it is, is that humans are causing it. Carbon dioxide causes climate change, humans cause carbon dioxide.

Yes everyone has a right to their opinion. In this case the opinions are simply wrong, there's no sugar coating it.

I like Al Gore's description of climate change as an 'inconvenient truth' - none of us want it to be true, it just is, and now we have to deal with it.

It's funny how people hate the carbon tax. For almost everyone it won't cost them any more money. All it tries to do is create an incentive to use less energy - install a solar system and you will be ahead of the game. The real crime is that the people who have financially benefited from creating the pollution (largely big energy generators and big industry - with millionaire CEOs and rich shareholders) are being given a heap of help to 'cope' with a carbon price. Basically they got rich making the mess and now the country has to try and pay to deal with it. Now that annoys me...

We need our cars to become more efficient (and cars like the Prius are important test beds for developing the technology to allow that to happen). That's the only way to stretch our oil reserves so that we can drive our Zeds in the future. There was a great Top Gear episode where they try to get Jay Leno to slag off the Prius - and he basically says that energy efficient cars are great, that's what will leave oil available for my classics to be driven.

I like that guy's style.

I drive my classics (and my SUV) - and carbon offset them. I try to keep them tuned and I try and drive as efficiently as I can (although we all fang it now and again - you've just gotta). I reckon most of us do the same and our Zeds are probably not big environmental villains. We just need to hope that we can manage oil reserves and carbon dioxide in a sensible way so that no government does do a knee-jerk reaction and ban old cars.

(steps down off his soapbox).

My 10c.

R.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users