Where do carbon credits come from?

[xelasnave]

I asked on another forum ...
I said that I thought it worked this way...

Someone calls by and changes your 100 watt globes for 50 watt globes and thereby can say they saved x tons of carbon...therefore this "credit" can be traded.

I was told..yes thats the way of it..

Is it this way?

Are we being conned yet again?

alex

[Zuts]

Why is this a con?

If this is the case and the number of carbon credits does not increase over time or only marginally increases, less than say the governments proposed 5 to 15% reduction, then this will allow the actual amount of carbon to be reduced.

[DJDD]

perhaps because the producers of the energy are not being asked to change their practices and it is left to the consumer to do so.

which does not mean that consumers should not do their bit but i can see it working this way:

Consumer needs to go without a bright light (50 W instead of 100 W) = consumer loses

Producer changes production process (green methods, carbon capture-hah!, etc.) and charges consumer extra = consumer loses and producer wins

this is my poorly understood take on it... :P

[Zuts]

Hi,

Most people pay tax. I can assume that anyone in a job is paying tax and that those without a job get social security benefits. The system is transparent and reasonably difficult to abuse.

As far as carbon trading is concerned it attempts to do the same thing as the tax system. Provide a transparent means for companies to reduce there emmision which is a cost and still get some benefit from it.

Without this system how would we know who is reducing what. As far as a 200 watt globe is concerned who cares? The supplier being the electricity utility is taxed (via carbon trading) at source. So if all consumers switch to 200 watt globe the 'tax' goes up.

What you are proposing if indeed you are proposing any system at all, is one where we all somehow just reduce our emissions and believe that other people and institutions do the same.

The carbon trading scheme formalises a sytem whereby actual reductions of carbon emmisions can be monitored.

Anyway, I can see that this thread will soon be locked as people quickly start abusing each other for there stand for and against climate change and so on ........

Cheers
Paul

[xelasnave]

I find your input comforting Paul as to the 200 watt globe that is...

All I would propose is sensible legislation that will surely cause the Government implimenting it to lose the next election...

I hope folk dont get upset and start abusing each other ...but there is something in the air it seems...

I have tried not to sound disrespectful or abusive and although I may have still some distance to go I say I respect all views even if I take the opposite position... in fact I enjoy learning "the hard way" ..by someone showing me I am wrong... it helps me come to grips with my infalibility.

Thanks for your input Paul it is always top shelf.

alex

[DJDD]

:lol: probably.


i was not proposing anything. :) in fact, i did not mean to send the email but obviously clicked on the wrong button :whistle:

I think much of the confusion is that no one really understands carbon credits, and that we generally hear from the media that most producers are looking for ways to get around the carbon credits, pay less, get more subsidies, charge consumers more whilst minimising their own outlays. blah blah.

that's it from me- not interested in debating climate change (many threads on IIS on that topic) and do not want to be blamed for locking a thread. :)

[Hagar]

Hi Alex. Working in the energy trading game for a few years now I can assure you your ideas on carbon trading are in the right direction. The carbon credits are a tradable comodity which will be issued against environmentally friendly upgrades to plant and also to new energy producing equipment which is either renewable, carbon reduced or carbon free. These credits will have a tradable value and will require energy producing companies to either purchase them, or trade them against less than freindly production methods to keep the production of carbon down. The producer who has high carbon outputs will need to buy credits which will increase his production costs while the carbon friendly producer will be able to sell his credits which will reduce his production costs and make his units cheaper. The aim is to force the high carbon producers to make improvements which will reduce overall production costs and be a little more friendly to the planet.

By the way, Carbon credits are not something new. In the past they were called REC's Renewable Energy Credits and all Electricity retailers were required to sell or buy REC's to a level which was a statutory % of their energy sales. 5 years ago REC's were traded at about $30/REC or MW they now trade at about $75. All renewable energy generators have the ability to produce REC's and new renewable energy sources produce one REC for each MW produced while older generators had a base line to reach before REC's were issued. This was an incentive program to build new renewable generators.

The new system while more complex, well at least appears to be, can only be good for the planet.

[DJDD]

thanks, Hagar.

that is the clearest explanation i think i have read.

regards,
DJDD

[PeterM]

Geez it is now sounding like the stock market, somebody makes a profit and somebody loses. Yes Alex I think we are being conned again, where will the credits come from - our wallets. There is a smell in the air and somebody somewhere has already realised that good profits are at hand and that is what drives the machine. Of course some might feel all warm and cozy in their beds when the government says we have reduced emmissions by x%, and have the "figures" to show it. Thank goodness for the automobile otherwise our streets would be 10 feet deep in horse poo by now. And that's it for me on this thread.
PeterM

[xelasnave]

thanks Doug
I have 200 acres of trees... any hope of working that fact into a financial benefit via the coming system
alex

[andrewk_82]

Hi all,
Attached is a fact sheet from the governments climate change website. I think it explains the carbon credit scheme quite well.
Cheers

[Ian Robinson]

I'm a bit of guru at improving thermal and pyromet processes (reducing fuel consumption) , bit of luck suitable consultant level or lead / princ engineer level roles will open up as a result of the government making each ton of CO2 worth $25.
Can justify very significant capital projects within big plants with when that cost value is built into the capital and economic justifications.

Crossing fingers for a surge in thermal , combustion , refractories and pyromet process engineering recruiting in 2009.

[astronut]

"Where do carbon credits come from?"

All the melted down greenies!!:lol:

[acropolite]

The concept of carbon credits has been a joke in europe, given the way our government is approaching the concept I expect it will be much the same here.

[spearo]

I'm saving the scrapings off the barbeque, will trade them in when the value goes up.
Hope I can retire on it
:]
frank

[Barrykgerdes]

Can I have a little rave on this. Maybe a little off the carbon credits fraud but it could be relevant.

I read through the report on Prof Garnaut's whinge on climate change. From this I have gleaned the information that he is a spokesperson for environmentalists. I also see that he bases his findings on the analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation. A group that appears to base its ideas on statistics rather than scientific facts.

The best analogy of statistics I can think of is the horse racing industry. If statistics were even 50% correct no one would ever need to place a losing bet .

Besides who are the Australian Conservation Foundation?

The idea that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to cause our climate to get hotter or change because it is a "greenhouse gas" is pure fantasy. Yes our climate is stabilised by the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere but carbon dioxide constitutes less than 1/1000th part of the atmosphere because it is absorbed almost as quick as it is produced by vegetation. Water vapour is by far the greatest contributor to the "greenhouse effect". Are we going to limit evapouration? Sun activity is the great controller of our climate. All else is insignificant.

I Think poor Mr Rudd has jumped on the Carbon emissions bandwagon because he sees it as a political vote catcher. I think he has jumped on the wrong band wagon but only the future will tell.

I could rave on more but I think I have said enough for one sitting except that the carbon credits fraud will make all previous scams absolutely insignificant.

Barry

[xelasnave]

Well Barry I would like to say more also...

but as we know the debate is over and anyone, who wishes to use facts that do not support recognition of the horror the world faces if we do not change our light globes and support the wonderful "green friendly" nueclear power approach, are simply fools....

The propagandah put out by the folk on the band wagon is overwhelming...you do know if we dont go neuclear we will lose the Great Barrier Reef...true a lady who said she was a marine biologist said such on an add on the radio ... I guess she was very concerned to pay for such an add... well someone paid for the add and I suspect it would not have been anyone pushing the neuclear power barrow.

AND when our former PM finally recognised the problem... never had he said anything on this matter...but then..." we have to recognise global warming is upon us and we must consider neuclear power"...mmmm what does that tell you...within weeks we have a list of NPower station sites ....and so folk accept that it is with us and the arguement shifted to "we dont want one here just move it someplace else"....the old divide and rule thing...

AND not doubt the Sydney desalinator was sold at the height of the add champainge...I think it costs $1million a day to keep it turned off...and on that note does anyone know the facts as I relate mere heresay... but it fits ...still I hope I am so wrong on that point.

Now I dont think we are as tidy as we could be and I feel guilty that we stuff up the planet ...and it is folk with some feeling that this crew target...guilt the best emotion to tear away at to get the victim in your control...and because it is so emotive they win.....the fact that we will not control the weather no matter what seems to be put to one side so that cunning folk can sell preventative measures.

I smell a con and I have been around the Sun many times...so I feel I have some experience in smelling clever marketing programs.

Folk think Al GOre is a wonderful man doing his movie to save the world but neglect to realise he has made some $50 million for his efforts...of course he is sincere you cant sell unless your buyers believe that you are sincere.

I thought when I first heard the light bulb change thing that it must have been a marketing idea that started in the sales meeting of the company who had these new globes to sell... and that to me seems more plausible than folk really doing something that would actually address the problem.

This smacks of the Y2k bug ...create fear then sell the fools the latest fix.

Chicken Little should be made compulsory reading I feel.

Now lets not get hot over this.... There is never any need for personal attacks as I am sure the facts can speak for themselves so please lets keep it nice if this thread goes on... no one has to point out I am a fool and a crack pot... I admit that... so move past stating the obvious in any debate.
alex

[Barrykgerdes]

Great Alex
Looks like you can see through the muck too.

However I don't think the debate is over yet. It will just go into hibernation for a few years till enough people start to wake up to the con and then it will start all over again. In the mean time it won't hurt to stir the pudding every now and then as I also will travel around the sun a few more times.

Barry

[xelasnave]

"This morning the Governments big advisor is decrying the Government because it is not strong enough...whatever...but the little thing that popped out was....

"How can Australia influence the world to reduce their carbon later if we are not tuff now...."

You have to be joking ...tails dont wag dogs.

How arogant as well this chap seems too wrapped up to see any realities.

If we are the cause there is no way that you will change human behaviour...and if you think you can lets address the rapes, the killing, the war, the corruption, the general crap that can be laid at the feet of human behaviour.... gee we cant stop the drugs we cant stop the domestic violence under age drinking but sure change the weather of course ..we are so wonderful we can do anything... well fix the real problems first and after I see the sucess I will come on board.

Before this economic collapse I warned folk ...oh no such could not happen... you are so old you dont realise the world has moved to a higher level and we will never see what you speak about...sure ok... but look it did happen

I am all for high asperations but by the same token lets get real ... if the Oceans are going to rise dont try and stop them pass laws to stop building on the lands the science must be able to tell us will go under.

Stop using land to grow trees that should be growing food.

But we see the birth of another industry with hangers on who propogate the myth...but the sky is not falling folks and if it is building better roofs wont fix it.

alex

[xelasnave]

I was very disturbed the other day to hear some fool advocating NP for Africa... why because their coal is so far from cities and 10% is lost in transport.... so with that logic lets get a program to put the dam things everywhere... with respect the problems in Africa suggests to me that such a roll out may well be premature... but of course I am wrong and its not fair that folk have no electric light...sure thats not fair but NP could be a little risky in that world at this stage maybe.


alex

[xelasnave]

I have just read Mikes encouragement to be positive and so I appologise for this thread ... not saying I dont believe in everything I have said but I can see there will be folk who having taken the opposite side may think I am having a go at them personally... I beleive of myself I do not attack personalities but no doubt it may not always appear that way.
I can not think of anyone I dont like really... no one has ever offended me and everyone here has always been suportive... I have more faults than anyone here can list so I am never put out.

alex

[Ian Robinson]

I'll admit to being a greeny , but I am not the tree hugging loony kind.

I insulated my ceiling and walls years before it was trendy to do so because I understand thermal insulation, did the sums and it was a good proposition , I was recladding anyway.
I added a roof turbine years before they were advocated as great for keeping the house cooler in summer.
The pay back for solar hot water is not good enough to do it in my view. If there was reticulated gas in my street - I'd convert.
I am still driving a big 4x4 and have no intention of getting rid of it.

[Ian Robinson]

It's actually very easy and cheap for industries to reduce their CO2 emissions.

I proved that when I was working at Newcastle Steelworks, we were able to reduce fuel consumption by near 10% overall , and up to 30% on specific products by simply being smarter in how the process was run , no capex involved.
Gained another 15% by improving control , refractories and burner and combustion systems (every 100oC increase in combustion air temp reduced fuel consumption by 5%).

Power stations (coal) can easily achieve 20% reductions in CO2 emissions by preprocessing coal to remove shale and clay , it's called ULTRA CLEAN COAL , the processed UCC can then be combusted and is as low emission as natural gas.
Trigeneration can also make power generation more efficient too.
Using pure O2 rather than air would also result in significant reductions in C02 emissions, if using air , you must heat the inert N2 in the air too ,and some of that N2 becomes NOx (another problem) , using pure O2 means better thermal efficiency.

[TrevorW]

I ask a question:

If we have so many different varieties of renewable energy tidal, wind, solar, geothermal why are we not promoting these instead of NP

In the USA no one has placed an order for a nuclear plant since 1973, a new 1,400-megawatt nuclear power plant is going to cost about $2.6 billion, why build it will take 6 1/2 yearsand while you are building, you have to issue equity, you have to service that equity. You have to issue bonds; you have to service the bonds with interest. You don't have any money coming in. You have an average of $1.3 billion out for 6 1/2 years that is not earning anything.

Wheres the logic with that investment you could build massive renewable safe energy prodcution facilities in half the time

[Ian Robinson]

I am opposed to NP , until such time as nuclear fusion becomes viable and sustainable. My objections are based on the engineering aspects and the close coupling of nuclear (uranium based) power with nuclear weapons proliferation.

We have stacks of high quality coal in Australia , use it.
We have stacks of natural gas in Australia , use it.
Nuclear power generation is not safe, not environmentally friendly, and not near as cheap (I know people who live in the USA in states that have nuclear power plants and their electricity bills are EXPENSIVE !!!).
Renewables should also be part of the mix , but , they are never going to be a realistic replacement for coal and gas and hydro generated electricity,

[xelasnave]

Well in my humble opinion each vendor of energy will say the others are not viable but given the adds one hears , such as I refered to about the barrier reef to be saved when NP is implemented it would appear perhaps they may be behind the promotion of the carbon thingy...for if for no other reason NP wil become viable because Governments can tax the consumer so it is the only economic fuel... no matter how economically inefficient any thing is tax consessions will make it work... so we wont see PN downed for reasons of economy...lets face it carbon tax on coal and carbon tax on NP and then there is the tax benefits any decent lobby group will see implemented... ask who pays for the barrier reef adds ??? I dont know but I bet track it back to the "foundation" and maybe I may be correct for once.

But I really dont know it is just if you track the money or work out who stands to gain when you hear stuff certain conspiracies can be speculated upon... and I am not into conspiracies only money trails... but I would love to know who paid for that add.

alex

[AndrewJ]

Carbon Credits are just the next No Doc Loans
( No Gas Loans ??? )

Until the world finds a way to control population and work within a
"non expanding" economy, it will get worse no matter what anyone does.

Andrew

[Ian Robinson]

The coral reef dying is not quite right , the correct temperature for coral to grow will simply move south , and the coral will slowly colonise shallow coastal water further south. So will the correct sea chemistry (CO2 is more soluble in warmer water than colder water).

Coal currently consumed to produce electricity has an ash content up to 40%, that ash is heated in the combustion process ---> wasted energy and extra CO2 produced , UCC removes the ash prior to combustion ---> less CO2 produced / MW
Powerstations used preheated air to combust the coal , air is 78% N2 which as far as combustion is concerned is inert , but has to to heated to combust the coal anyway , this consumes energy (coal) ---> more coal required ---> more C02 produced / MW , use pure O2 ---> less coal needed / MW and less C02 produced / MW
Trigeneration can produce thermal efficiencies in excess of 90% ---> less coal / MW and less CO2 produced / MW , current Cogen coal fired poeer stations are lucky if they achieve 40% thermal efficiency. Gas fired is not much different.http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material/resource/pwr-eff.htm

Why the power generators don't impliment UCC , O2 enriched combustion and trigeneration (as retrofits and upgrades to existing powerstations) is beyond silly. Maybe CCs will give some incentive to do this.

[Ian Robinson]

I regularly recieve invites to take up new credit cards, with low doc or no doc requirements and very low honeymoon period interest rates .... something I am not interested in taking up .... but many people do and they will be in big trouble in many cases when the interest rates increase.
No one learns anything , and the mistakes are repeated with different products ----

CCs are not the next low doc loans , they are an opportunity to encourage industry to clean up their act and an incentive to do so.

[xelasnave]

Well that is so very interesting thanks for posting. Maybe the Coal folk have something up their sleeve ...

The really good thing about all this is the public information , the developments of many alternatives some how gives one confidence what ever we run out of we will have something to replace it... I think we should save Uranium strangely for future generations to power the battle stars;)...
WE can use solar and wind down here but up there we we regret wasting NP on Earthly things:whistle:... you cant use petrol in space or coal:D... so save it I say:rolleyes:.

We are very lucky really:).

alex:):):)

[Ian Robinson]

Leave the uranium in the ground , unless you get gold and copper and uranium is there anyway.

Australia if we must go the nuclear fission route would be better off using our even bigger reserves of thorium - by the way - fewer and less radiactive byproducts that have to be safely isolated and stored for hundreds or thousands of years from the thorium cycle.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf

Was rejected in the 1940s because the UK and USA wanted the bomb. This is the main reason why the USA, France, UK, Russia went so hugely down the uranium cycle path , not because it gave efficient power (which it doesn't) and I suspect this was the hidden agenda behind the last government's determination to put nuclear power in Australia back on the table (delusions of becoming a regional power and keeping the asian hordes at bay) and is the true main reason behind the lobbying for it, not to mention BHPB and RT will benefit greatly from it as will nuclear power plant vendors (based in the USA , France and Germany).

[Hagar]

If nothing else comes out of the climate change and greenhouse effect debate other than a little public interest and a little change in industry then at least it achieved something. The fact that the earth will be hugely overpopulated, missmanaged and publicly raped for it's resources means even the slightest improvement has to be considered a benifit and a priority for everyone who wants our children and their children to live a similar quality of live to us.
Debate is always healthy, change is always needed.

[xelasnave]

Ian you are the man... can we get some Thorium leases ... I can save the planet if we dont go thorium we will loose the barrier reef... let me get my suit and we will get started.

That is so interesting lots of other stuff to follow up.

You know how I rattle on about gravity thru that approach it suggests to me that if one were to even get a large block of iron and placed it in a graphite jacket the inside of the iro should get hot (in my universe) I dont know if you have ever come across such... I just cant work out how large the iro should be or how thick the graphite should be... anyways there are other things that work at least.
alex

[xelasnave]

Doug I somewhat agree but see the activity finally as very possitive..without the scare alternate energies would have a tuffer time... and their elevation will put more pressure to be better from the conventional suppliers...so it is all good.

Many industries will grow, managers engineers, workers on the slab, the list is exciting ...and things may get less poluted efficienies may creep in...and we will be less harse on the planet.... everything is very positive and if I was capable would if a young fella be getting into the business...building wind generators would be cool...researching them cooler still..

So we are lucky our system as seemingly distorted as it can present that we get such happy outcomes..we are blessed I reckon.


alex