ie. #victoria's new #EV tax works out to be about 11%.
…buy an #EV in victoria and pay more in #EV tax than GST.
with #EVs at 0.7% market share and #victoria's transport emissions rising…
now is the *worst* time to slap on an 11% #EV tax.
…meanwhile, most comparable countries are helping their citizens to own an #EV.
to save me an afternoon of replies: 1. EVs don't pay fuel excise because they don't burn fuel 2. fuel excise does not fund roads 3. there are budget-neutral ways to support #EV purchases.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
while there's an immense amount of energy in all matter — E=mc² and all that — we *don't* have technology to get a lifetime's energy for a person out of a golfball sized lump of uranium.
if you did want to power an average australian's lifetime energy needs from uranium, what would it take? 🧐
…by a couple of different methods (link at end), i estimate that 2.1GWh would cover all the energy needs of an average australian lifetime, assuming full electrification.
working back from this handy chart from @WorldNuclear, in the best case you'd need 417cc of nuclear fuel (mainly UO₂) for a single australian's lifetime.
why is LULUCF (land-use, land-use change & forestry) excluded?
1. measurement methodologies aren't standard between countries & frequently change — no robust method to compare countries 2. annual fluctuations are high / noisy
3. the vast majority of australia's LULUCF variation is driven by changes to QLD land-clearing laws, a function of state political tussles, and nothing to do with commonwealth policy. 4. australia is famous for using LULUCF as a fudge, see @MichaelM_ACT:
in july only 213 of 720MW (30%) was subscribed.
subscriptions have since dropped to 104MW (14%)…
of the 36 towns in #nuscale's pilot project, the "carbon free power project" #CFPP:
• 8 towns have withdrawn entirely
• 24 reduced their share entitlement
• 3 maintained identical entitlement
• 1 joined (token level).
don't think of a scenario as a prediction, but rather a set of constraints/assumptions and the cheapest path found to supply power within those constraints.
let's talk about the 'step change' scenario.
'step change' is the closest to being compliant with the paris agreement — ie. a half-decent start if we want to keep the great barrier reef, not destroy civilisation etc.
it gets us to 96% renewables in 2042.
(the central 'business as usual' scenario is a few years slower.)