Australian Politics Forum - Labor's 50% renewable target

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #15 - Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:12pm

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 9:48pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 8:17pm:

I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation, let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?

Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. Grin

That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

issuevoter Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9200 The Great State of Mind Gender:	Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity Reply #16 - Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:37pm Here is my political dilemma: The global warming denial, do nothing policies of the Right, show they have their heads stuffed firmly up their arses. The open border, universal income, defense-only military, and asylum policies of the Left, show they have their heads stuffed firmly up their arses.
Back to top	No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion. IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19694
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #17 - Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 11:45pm

issuevoter wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:37pm:

The global warming denial, do nothing policies of the Right, show they have their heads stuffed firmly up their arses.

Which global warming denial would that be? I don't know of anyone who denies climate changes. And that includes both warming and cooling.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #18 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 7:22am

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 4:18pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 2:28pm:

New coal plants are more expensive than renewable energy. We passed that tipping point a few years ago.

Does that include the attendant battery back up? Figures would be nice; not just bland assertions.

Here you go dickhead!!!

Roll Eyes

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-03/angus-taylor-energy-minister-power-price-...

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Its time Gold Member Offline Boot libs out Posts: 25639 Gender:	Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity Reply #19 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 8:10am Love my renewable energy, solar power winner winner chicken dinner, 10.40 credit with air-con cranking . Free power all summer
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #20 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 9:50am

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:12pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 9:48pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 8:17pm:

I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation, let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?

Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. Grin

That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet.

It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is?

It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension.

And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts.

Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #21 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 10:39am

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 9:50am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:12pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 9:48pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 8:17pm:

I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation, let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?

Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. Grin

That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet.

It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is?

It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension.

And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts.

Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs.

But they are paying tax on the dividend. The company paid it for them before distribution. No different to the company taking taxes out of your wages before distribution.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19694
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #22 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:18am

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 7:22am:

Here you go dickhead!!!

Thanks fool.

"There is a caveat — because renewable energy sources are variable, there will be a future need for "balancing" or stabilising technologies to maintain adequate electricity supply 24/7 as the penetration of renewable energy increases.

But the cheapest way to do this, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator and most analysts, is a combination of battery storage (likely to fall in price as production scales up), pumped hydro and electricity from gas-fired power plants to meet peaks in demand — not coal."

No mention of cost, merely a hoped for decrease in battery prices. So not factored in.

BTW - If you were referring to this ""The lowest cost replacement for this retiring capacity and energy will be a portfolio of resources, including solar (28 gigawatts), wind (10.5 GW) and storage (17 GW and 90 GWh), complemented by 500 megawatts of flexible gas plant and transmission investment," it said."

That's talking about pumped storage and hydro, not batteries.

So the answer is a resounding NO. Wink

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:24am by lee »

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 19694 Gender:	Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity Reply #23 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:19am Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 9:50am: It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension. Data?
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #24 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:26am

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 10:39am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 9:50am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:12pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 9:48pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 8:17pm:

I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation, let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?

Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. Grin

That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet.

It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is?

It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension.

And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts.

Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs.

But they are paying tax on the dividend. The company paid it for them before distribution. No different to the company taking taxes out of your wages before distribution.

That is bullshit. Income taxes from employment cannot be negative. Refunds for dividend imputation can be.

It is a massive rort and shutting it down is needed to keep the Budget in check. If it isn't abolished how much will it cost the Budget in 20 years?

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #25 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 12:02pm

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:26am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 10:39am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 9:50am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:12pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 9:48pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 8:17pm:

I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation, let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?

Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. Grin

That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet.

It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is?

It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension.

And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts.

Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs.

But they are paying tax on the dividend. The company paid it for them before distribution. No different to the company taking taxes out of your wages before distribution.

That is bullshit. Income taxes from employment cannot be negative. Refunds for dividend imputation can be.

It is a massive rort and shutting it down is needed to keep the Budget in check. If it isn't abolished how much will it cost the Budget in 20 years?

Just how are they negative. You're confused yet again.

It's just a money grab because Bill can't fund his give aways. Self evident by the fact that taxes aren't being reduced elsewhere. What happens next time these wastrel idiots run out of money. Works well for the French. They tax their citizens almost double to us with an array of personal, inheritance and consumption taxes. They haven't had a budget in the black for over 45 years. There's a good lesson there.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #26 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:30pm

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:18am:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 7:22am:

Here you go dickhead!!!

Quote:

"There is a caveat — because renewable energy sources are variable, there will be a future need for "balancing" or stabilising technologies to maintain adequate electricity supply 24/7 as the penetration of renewable energy increases.

But the cheapest way to do this, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator and most analysts, is a combination of battery storage (likely to fall in price as production scales up), pumped hydro and electricity from gas-fired power plants to meet peaks in demand — not coal."

"The lowest cost replacement for this retiring capacity and energy will be a portfolio of resources, including solar (28 gigawatts), wind (10.5 GW) and storage (17 GW and 90 GWh), complemented by 500 megawatts of flexible gas plant and transmission investment," it said."

That's talking about pumped storage and hydro, not batteries.

There are two figures given for storage....What is the difference between pumped storage and hydro Dickhead!!!

Roll Eyes

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:48pm by philperth2010 »

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19694
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #27 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 5:12pm

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

There are two figures given for storage...

No Petal. There is only one set of figures. And there is no dollar cost.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

What is the difference between pumped storage and hydro Dickhead!!!

Well you see phil not all hydro is pumped storage. That last one is for hydro whether pumped storage or simply free fall with no pumping back to the dam.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #28 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 5:24pm

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 5:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

There are two figures given for storage...

There is only one set of figures. And there is no dollar cost.

There are two figures for storage and the analysis clearly considered battery storage and pumped hydro in it's cost analysis!!!

Quote:

storage (17 GW and 90 GWh)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

What is the difference between pumped storage and hydro Dickhead!!!

Well you see phil not all hydro is pumped storage. That last one is for hydro whether pumped storage or simply free fall with no pumping back to the dam.

Lee wrote....
Quote:

That's talking about pumped storage and hydro, not batteries.

Continuous hydro is not storage....Pumped hydro is storage along with batteries as the article stated....You are a dickhead mate!!!

Roll Eyes

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-03/angus-taylor-energy-minister-power-price-...

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19694
Gender: male

Re: Labor's 50% renewable target - energy insanity
Reply #29 - Feb 4^th, 2019 at 6:07pm

Ah yes. just skimmed the report.

"By 2040 under the Neutral scenario, the energy production from retired coal-fired generation is projected to be replacedwith about 28 GW of large-scale solar generation and nearly 10.5GW of wind generation(in addition to the 4.5GW already installed), complemented by over 17GW of new and existing storage capacity."

No mention of cost.

BTW- "Prices of electricity from new renewable energy projects are already far cheaper than the likely price from the new-generation coal plants some Coalition MPs want to see built."

In your ref it is not in quotes. Something that the ABC just inserted with no attribution. it doesn't get a mention in the report -

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/I...

So in reality NOWHERE is it stated what the cost will be.

Back to top

IP Logged