Gas V Electric Costs

[Diggles]

It'll be seventy by next year



In all seriousness if possible, you should be around 21c to 28c, depending on how much you have used etc etc.

Wow, didn't think this thread would light the political bomb fire it has, thanks for the info and political lesson. Quite funny reading from the side lines :icon_cheers:

Diggles

 

[Bribie G]

If every Chinese family went out and bought a toaster tomorrow, any benefit from our Carbon Tax would be blown away like a pinch of dust in the wind.

That apart, I calculated my costs per boil at around 80c. Also talking electricity, for most quaffing brews if you have a fairly good electric HWS like a fairly late model Rheem the hot water is perfectly good for strike water, mine comes out around 55 degrees and because it's cooked on offpeak that's a wee bit of a saving as well.

 

[punkin]

If every Chinese family went out and bought a toaster tomorrow, any benefit from our Carbon Tax would be blown away like a pinch of dust in the wind.

That apart, I calculated my costs per boil at around 80c. Also talking electricity, for most quaffing brews if you have a fairly good electric HWS like a fairly late model Rheem the hot water is perfectly good for strike water, mine comes out around 55 degrees and because it's cooked on offpeak that's a wee bit of a saving as well.

If you tap in before the temper valve you can have 80-90c water :icon_cheers:

solar hot water makes this a very good start to a brew day.

 

[Dave70]

Another consideration is efficiency. I some how doubt my old three ring burner is making the best use of my propane's available BTU's.


I wonder how a bag of those heat beads from Bunnings would go?



And of course, anybody who cant see the carbon tax as the wealth redistribution sleight of hand that it is needs to stop looking at the world through their green tinted, red framed glasses.
(just my 2c)

(sorry, $23)

 

[Bribie G]

Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)

 

[QldKev]

That's it, from now on, I'm farting in a bottle.



and I may go turn that heater up another degree....

 

[DJR]

Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)

I saw some dude had put together a rocket stove for brewing- it looks pretty unmanageable for a kettle (boilovers etc) but as a HLT it may be useful. Doesn't use a lot of wood to boil water at all, it is just a lot more efficient than an open fire or wood fired BBQ.

http://www.greenhomebrewing.com/?p=54

I wonder whether that idea with an air bypass to control the heat might allow better control for brewing purposes.

Back OT i use an electric HLT for mashin and sparge water, doesn't cost much per batch, then about $1 or $2 worth of gas for the boil.

 

[Dave70]

Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)

I make a similar rationalisation when I crank up my fuel stove. Since the tree I'm burning already neutralised its CO2 emissions when living.
Kind of a retroactive carbon sink if you will.

Only works if you start the fire with twigs though.


I do however use plastic containers and kero in a pinch.
I spose I should plant a shrub or something.

 

[Malted]

If every Chinese family went out and bought a toaster tomorrow, any benefit from our Carbon Tax would be blown away like a pinch of dust in the wind.

They might not be able to use it...
If every Chinese person had access to electricity ... I guess they're working on it as they're building TWO power plants per week http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm

What if every Indonesian had access to electricity? I guess we might not need Live Cattle Export? Let's not worry about how they treat our cattle for now and waste money on getting them trained and their facilities up to date. Lets build them power plants and infrastructure, and then give them fridges to store meat instead of buying it from the wet market each day and then they'll want boxed beef instead of on the hoof! This will open the door for MacDondals, KFC, diabetes and obesity. Let's civilise globalise them and they'll thank us for it. They will thank us won't they?

 

[user 384]

Bottom line is though why we are paying the biggest in the world

Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!

This idea that we are paying the highest in the world is based upon a study prepared for the Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA). Gee they EUAA wouldn't be biased would they? :lol:

Lifehacker give a good analysis of the EUAA report, highlighting the methodological flaws.

Two much more credible reports on electricity prices show that Australia clearly doesn't pay the highest prices in the world. One is by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics. The other is by NUS Consulting Group (a US energy cost management consulting company), which showed Australia was ranked 12th in the world for electricity prices, a smidge above the USA ranked 14th. The NUS Consulting Group based their analysis on actual prices, no modeling.

However, you can believe the good folk at EUAA if that fits your agenda.

Cheers
MAH

 

[Rowy]

Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!

This idea that we are paying the highest in the world is based upon a study prepared for the Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA). Gee they EUAA wouldn't be biased would they? :lol:

Lifehacker give a good analysis of the EUAA report, highlighting the methodological flaws.

Two much more credible reports on electricity prices show that Australia clearly doesn't pay the highest prices in the world. One is by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics. The other is by NUS Consulting Group (a US energy cost management consulting company), which showed Australia was ranked 12th in the world for electricity prices, a smidge above the USA ranked 14th. The NUS Consulting Group based their analysis on actual prices, no modeling.

However, you can believe the good folk at EUAA if that fits your agenda.

Cheers
MAH

No agenda......Simple question.............name me one country in the world that is paying $23.00 a ton for Carbon.

 

[Malted]

No agenda......Simple question.............name me one country in the world that is paying $23.00 a ton for Carbon.

Feck it all! Are you saying they're going to shove carbon into our electricity now? I want 100% pure and natural electricity, none of this stuff watered down with carbon. Carbon is a by product of cheese making you know and they are just getting richer by putting it into our electricity to make it go further. Scandalous!

 

[Gavo]

Better still go out and cut down some trees and burn them. Then when the trees regrow they will reabsorb the carbon dioxide. National parks are a good source. B)

Hey thats what I did today... except I got my timber of a mates farm and the trees were already dead. I have already started burning them though keeping the house warm. None of that burning electricity to keep the house warm here.

 

[user 384]

No agenda......Simple question.............name me one country in the world that is paying $23.00 a ton for Carbon.

Finland. 60 Euro!

The problem is your figure of $23 and my figure of 60 are meaningless in isolation, as they're simply the rate of the tax. Unless we also know the base of the tax, we don't know how "big" the tax is, we don't know the impact on the economy or the impact on individuals.

This means your assertion that Australia is

paying the biggest in the world

is completely unsubstantiated.

What we do know, in Australia the rate is $23 t/Co2, imposed on companies that emit over 25,000 t/CO2 per year (the base). From knowing the rate and the base, we can extrapolate the likely impact. At the macro level some have estimated this to be an increase in CPI of 0.75% (as a comparison the introduction of the GST increased CPI by 2.5%). At a household level, the same study estimated it would add $7.87 p/w to the poorest 10% of households, $22.13 p/w to the richest 10% of households and an average of $13.18 p/w for all households. This is starting to tell us how "big" the tax is. Another indicator is that it will raise approximately $8 billion per year (although again this doesn't really tell us how big the tax is without knowing the size of the economy it was raised from).

Now lets look at Finland. 60t/CO2 is bigger than $23 t/CO2, but what does this mean. It means F-all!

60t/CO2 is the rate for traffic fuels. So we know that in Finland the base includes petrol, which is excluded in Australia. 30t/CO2 is the rate for coal and natural gas, except there is a 50% discount when used in combined electricity and heat production and no CO2 tax when used for electricity production. Again, the rate is higher and the base wider than in Australia, except in regards to electricity production. Overall the Finish carbon tax is quite complex, and can't be described as a single flat rate.

So what do we know?

We know in Australia that at $23t/CO2 imposed on companies that emit over 25,000 t/CO2 per year, it will raise approximately $8 billion, from an economy of $1.57 trillion, from a population of 23 million people.

We know in Finland, their various environmental energy taxes will raise approximately $5.5 billion, from an economy of $187.6 billion dollars, from a population of 5.4 million people.

So yeah, I think saying Australia has the biggest carbon tax in the world is pure bollocks and to name just one country with a bigger tax, I give you Finland.

 

[Markbeer]

Hi

back to the original question.

Cheapest is town gas. Put a point in the garage and u have no bottle changing, cheap gas that won't run out. Burners are available for natural.

Then electricity, then LPG.

Otherwise if you get your LPG for free as many do than that would be the cheapest.

Mark

 

[brad81]

Bodily harm cost?

Gas maybe a burn
Electric stop your heart

Of course due care and caution would be exercised, but the risk is there.

 

[Dave70]

Finland. 60 Euro!

The problem is your figure of $23 and my figure of 60 are meaningless in isolation, as they're simply the rate of the tax. Unless we also know the base of the tax, we don't know how "big" the tax is, we don't know the impact on the economy or the impact on individuals.

This means your assertion that Australia is is completely unsubstantiated.

What we do know, in Australia the rate is $23 t/Co2, imposed on companies that emit over 25,000 t/CO2 per year (the base). From knowing the rate and the base, we can extrapolate the likely impact. At the macro level some have estimated this to be an increase in CPI of 0.75% (as a comparison the introduction of the GST increased CPI by 2.5%). At a household level, the same study estimated it would add $7.87 p/w to the poorest 10% of households, $22.13 p/w to the richest 10% of households and an average of $13.18 p/w for all households. This is starting to tell us how "big" the tax is. Another indicator is that it will raise approximately $8 billion per year (although again this doesn't really tell us how big the tax is without knowing the size of the economy it was raised from).

Now lets look at Finland. 60t/CO2 is bigger than $23 t/CO2, but what does this mean. It means F-all!

60t/CO2 is the rate for traffic fuels. So we know that in Finland the base includes petrol, which is excluded in Australia. 30t/CO2 is the rate for coal and natural gas, except there is a 50% discount when used in combined electricity and heat production and no CO2 tax when used for electricity production. Again, the rate is higher and the base wider than in Australia, except in regards to electricity production. Overall the Finish carbon tax is quite complex, and can't be described as a single flat rate.

So what do we know?

We know in Australia that at $23t/CO2 imposed on companies that emit over 25,000 t/CO2 per year, it will raise approximately $8 billion, from an economy of $1.57 trillion, from a population of 23 million people.

We know in Finland, their various environmental energy taxes will raise approximately $5.5 billion, from an economy of $187.6 billion dollars, from a population of 5.4 million people.

So yeah, I think saying Australia has the biggest carbon tax in the world is pure bollocks and to name just one country with a bigger tax, I give you Finland.

Name two..

 

[DJR]

Name two..

From http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/

Sweden - Sweden enacted a tax on carbon emissions in 1991. Currently, the tax is $150 per ton of carbon, but no tax is applied to fuels used for electricity generation, and industries are required to pay only 50% of the tax.

British Columbia/Canada - British Columbia inaugurated a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008 that qualifies as far and away the most significant carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere. The tax started on July 1, 2008 at a rate of $10 (Canadian) per metric ton of carbon dioxide, and rises by $5/tonne annually to reach $30 per tonne of CO2 in 2012.

Are we done yet?

 

[kjparker]

From http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/

Sweden - Sweden enacted a tax on carbon emissions in 1991. Currently, the tax is $150 per ton of carbon, but no tax is applied to fuels used for electricity generation, and industries are required to pay only 50% of the tax.

British Columbia/Canada - British Columbia inaugurated a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008 that qualifies as far and away the most significant carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere. The tax started on July 1, 2008 at a rate of $10 (Canadian) per metric ton of carbon dioxide, and rises by $5/tonne annually to reach $30 per tonne of CO2 in 2012.

Are we done yet?

What are you doing!?!?! your letting facts get in the way of a good story!

 

[QldKev]

How did this thread become a pissing contest?