Just as a lot of folk are discarding the whole idea of an ETS in favour of a carbon tax, the politics of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is about to ramp up a notch, if this report is accurate:
MALCOLM Turnbull has revealed he will advocate a tougher greenhouse gas reduction target than Labor as he prepares to embarrass the Rudd Government by resurrecting a parliamentary inquiry into the merits of the scheme.
Interesting.
And everyone was so sure the deniers ran the show. If the Coalition comes up with their own CPRS that the Greens can (mostly) approve of, surely Labor will have their hand forced. Hey, maybe democracy will actually trump the interests of big business.
Does anyone know how many votes are needed in the Senate to amend legislation? The Greens should be talking to Hunt and Turnbull about what they may have in common about changes to the CPRS. I know that this is a bizarre idea, but I don’t see many alternatives at the moment.
Yes maybe, although if the Coalition were in power they would have trouble getting a tougher scheme past their own senators.
“The Greens should be talking to Hunt and Turnbull about what they may have in common about changes to the CPRS. I know that this is a bizarre idea, but I don’t see many alternatives at the moment.”
I think Turnbull first has to get his own caucus to agree with his apparent higher targets before he tries to woo The Greens.
Sounds like the Julie Bishop approach to fiscal policy.
How is this magic trick to be achieved?
The primary problem with this, if I recall correctly, is that accounting systems for this kind of thing haven’t been fully developed yet, the reason the government excluded agriculture from the CPRS for the initial few years.
Furthermore, the international rules on this kind of thing are rather screwy, meaning that some reductions from this kind of source don’t currently count towards meeting our international obligations.
Furthermore, if you’re going to let farmers get the benefit of offests, surely on fairness grounds they should pay for their emissions (most importantly, from burping cows). Try selling that to the NFF.
In any case, until Malcolm stands up and says so publicly, I remain highly skeptical, given his partyroom’s long and loud denialism on the issue.
So far it sounds like the Libs are proposing a tougher carbon cap that at the same time will require less effort and cost to achieve. Good luck with that. Political posturing at best.
Well they only said it would be less onerous on businesses. Which to me surely translates to more onerous on households.
Malcolm took note of the hysteria generated in some quarters by the 5% target.
Hmmm, “either by expanding the boundaries of the ETS to include emission-reducing activities currently excluded.”
So, a regressive ‘flat-tax’ solution as opposed to a ‘graduated’ one, or do I have my economies of scale mixed up?
The way to get a CPRS past the far right of the Liberal Party is to link it to tax cuts.
The broader strategy here is surely: slow and steady wins the race. Rudd splashes money around on the stimulus, Turnbull spends a bit but doesn’t go overboard. Rudd gets rattled and faffs the whole CPRS (can’t see it coming together before the election, can you?), Turnbull creates the impression that not only is he behind it, he’s done it in such a way that doesn’t imperil the economy. Turnbull goes to the election as Captain Sensible, Rudd as the Stuntman. Might not work but it beats the hell out of Beazley in ’98 or whatever Brendan Nelson was on about, and absolutely stymies Peter “In my day” Costello.
I’m interested in Penny Wong’s comment that “Mr Turnbull’s idea of using environmental forestry would require planting an area half the size of Tasmania every year for a decade to implement”. If true, is this really so crazy? Let’s allow it may take 20 years rather than 10, but is there that much area in Australia where there’s sufficient water to plant the right sort of trees that help absorb CO2? If so, what sort of resources would be required to plant such a huge area? Planting trees is pretty low-skilled work (surely?) so is this an opportunity for us to keep a lid on unemployment as the recession starts to really bite?
Fran Kelly talked to Andrew Robb on Breakfast this morning. Robert is right, their big play is biochar and agriculture. But Robert is also right about the problems and issues associated with this.
So it’s a half-baked political gimmick. The question is whether the Greens can make something sensible out of all this that will also be acceptable to Xenephon and Fielding – and whether the Government will play ball with the Greens or try to create a double dissolution trigger.
The Greens may be the only ones who will put the interests of the planet above short-term politics.
Brian, surely for the Green the interests of the planet and short-term politics are much the same thing. Their entire raison d’etre and political support comes from the fact that they consider environmental issues top priority.
Andrew E – that’s pretty much what I said a few days ago. An ETS or carbon tax is a great opportunity for lowerong income or corporate tax rates. Even Krugman thinks that by later this century we might have got rid of income taxes altogther, and rely entirely on Pigovian or externality taxes. While this has the potential to be somewhat regressive and significantly increase net income inequality, I suspect this will only go so far until political/democratic pressures force governments to find other methods to minimise inequalities.
I do find Wong’s assertion bizarre. I haven’t checked the numbers yet on area, but biosequestration does not come in the form of reforestation. For example, one thing that Garnaut noted was that reducing overgrazing from cattle and feral animals in rangelands could sequester over 200 Mt per year. The ANU Green Carbon report suggests that not logging native forests could sequester 136 Mt per year (depending on the time period).
Andrew E: that gets it past the urban economic fundies – possibly.
It doesn’t get it past the rural Luddite faction.
What’s interesting is how the Liberal Right will react. Here Turnbull is, saying that the targets should be tougher. And here they are, saying that climate change is a load of old cobblers.
Turnbull is deliberately goading Abetz, Minchin and co.
This will make good theatre, but as a political strategy to score hits against the government, it sucks. It never pays a right wing opposition party to try to out flank a centre left government on the left, because the right of the right would sooner blow up their own party than see that happen.
Spiros – there’s nothing left-wing about replacing income taxes with externality taxes. Further, it’s the not the first time the Liberals have had a tougher stance on emissions reductions than Labour – under Hewson their policy was definitely more ambitious than Labor’s. Will the strategy work? Probably not, because as I said the ALP would surely rather commit to bigger targets than risk losing support on this issue. I’m surprised Turnbull is making this announcement now – I hadn’t expected it until close to the next election.
Yes it does Robert, Turnbull’s proposal lets farmers off the hook entirely. Urban Australians will tie themselves in knots witching off appliances at the wall while some farmer clear-fells and does spray irrigation on 40degC days. That’s how this country works.
Before the ’96 election Tim Fischer was particularly big on “brown issues”, i.e. environmental issues that were ecologically important but not as scenic as the Tasmanian wilderness or the Barrier Reef. It was all good but nothing came of it, nothing stopping them dusting that idea off and trotting it out again.
Wizofaus @ 17.
“there’s nothing left-wing about replacing income taxes with externality taxes.”
True, but as far as the Liberal Right is concerned, climate change is just a green/left/academic/ABC fantasy. This comes from their gut and that’s all there is to it.
Trust me, Andrew, no matter how good a deal farmers get out of it, they’ll still scream and yell.
Spiros wrote:
It did pay the Nationals and Liberals to do that in Queensland in 1995 over the South Coast Motorway issue and talking with the Greens on environmental issues generally. At the same time it’s worth reminding ourselves that after they had reaped the spoils of victory from this tactical coup the Borbidge Coalition government reverted to pointyhead type throughout its term. It’s also worth reminding ourselves that the political psychology of the climate change issue is exactly as Spiros has described it in other comments on this thread.
I have to say, this is certainly the most interesting political power play since the election. It will be very entertaining to see the posturing and positioning over this issue, between the Government and Opposition as well as within the Opposition.
Is it possible that Malcom Turnbull might achieve some effect as Opposition Leader that may be of benefit to us through a more wide-reaching CPRS bill in the end? It certainly seems to me that this gambit might be his last chance of winning some renewed support from the electorate in general… then again it might just result in a huge implosion due to internal tensions within the Liberal Party and the Coalition especially.
Any thoughts on how the National Party Senators might react?
If Turnbull allowed Liberal party policy to dominated by people who thought thousands of scientists all over the world make up a left-wing conspiracy (in which the governments of every other developed nation in the world are party to), then the party would deserve its inevitable fate. The denialist faction’s sway surely stemmed almost entirely from the presence of Howard, and there’s little reason to believe they have any more say in policy these days than Howard does himself.
Agriculture?? The uncertainties in estimating soil carbon, crop carbon etc are still huge. Garnaut was correct in pointing this out. This could be a delaying tactic (as seems to be the hyping of carbon-capture-storage from coal burning).
Meanwhile, over at the Oz
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25093054-601,00.html
150 tonnes? Shurely shome mishtake?? Some big power of 10 omitted perhaps, like Opposition Treasury Swot Joe Hockey getting thousands/millions/billions confused? It’s not rocket surgery lads, it’s just arithmetic.
Wizofaus @10
Wong is probably right about Malcolm’s mad scheme.
Since 1850 Victoria has lost about 66% of its tree cover;
So there is a bit of space available in Victoria until we return the forest to the condition that prevailed in 1851 when 25% of the state burned. OOPS.
In any event there are questions about carbon sequestration in Forests:
http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/env_services/carbon/accounting/Default.asp
I think the report linked above basically says that it is a waste of effort. Cop this for fluff:
“Approximately 50% of the dry weight of the biomass in a forest is carbon. All forests are carbon reservoirs and a carbon sink is a carbon reservoir that is increasing in size. Of course, forests can also be carbon sources if they emit more carbon than they sequester, or they may be neutral in terms of carbon when sequestration is balanced by emissions.”
I tried this passage out on some of my fellow factory workers at morning tea. They said perhaps I should go home and have a rest, or blow my brains out; whichever was the least messy.
Huggy
This is a cheap bait-and-switch tactic by Turnbull that’s really just like the cheap bait-and-switch Howard used to play Turnbull like a prize chump – the republic.
It could also easily turn out to be like the Middle-East’s Two-State/One-State shell-game…running out the clock while grabbing everything not nailed down. An epic scam.
Maybe the Libs could get George Speight in to manage the environment. He might have more credibility.
wizofaus @ 23 – I hope you’re right about the denialists no longer having sway but I reckon the corporate interests behind that stupid policy are the forces that drive it. Howard was merely the holy vessel. Minchin, Robb, Abetz – they’re all in there still batting away and Fifield’s elevation last week shows that Turnbull still needs to remind them he knows they’re there. But while the Greenfields foundation (is that what they’re called) keep pumping large barrowloads of polluters’ dosh into the party coffers, there’ll always be representatives in the party to voice their wishes. I just hope Turnbull can fend ‘em off.
So, to be upbeat, let’s assume Turnbull can wrest this right wing denialist rump into some kind of ‘better than 15%’ target. On the other side, the Greens are calling for 40%. Rudd’s going to have to increase the target to win someone over – though Turnbull’s sop to the dries might be to stick to the ’5% if no Copenhagen’ deal, knowing this is the most likely outcome. He gets to look greener but with a large chance of not having to actually do it.
But the BCA, AIG, et al still don’t seem to have enough and over and above their billions in compensation, they now want dry runs for the first couple of years, but not without the compensation, one assumes. (I can’t believe how sanguine some people have been in earlier posts about the obscene compensation simply being the cost of getting a scheme up. These companies are blood-sucking leeches of the ugliest kind). Given their clout, its likely some form of their demands will start to insinuate the legislation once it gets minced in the Senate. Particularly if Rudd’s trying to deal with the coalition.
Not sure Turnbull’s surge of valour on this one will produce a better outcome – unless it manages push Rudd towards the Greens & independents.
I wonder if Turnbull has seen some polling, post bush fires, that climate change has been raised in the public consciousness.
Turnbull’s figure of 150 Mt for biosequestration is conservative. Hopefully I’ll have time to write a post on this soon.
Ambigulous, not sure if it’s been changed, but it now says 150 million tonnes.
Wong is right. We need to plant more trees – they are the only safe natural cheap form of carbon sequestion we have at our disposal. They can actually suck carbon from the atmosphere and store it – which emission reduction meausures cannot do.
We also need to stop chopping down forests by industrial clear felling logging and woodchipping still rampant in Tasmania, Victoria and SE New South Wales. It is still going on in WA too. Not much sign of government action on this yet though – even though this would provide massive emission reductions.
Too much industry and union pressure for business as usual I suspect.
Peter M, to amend legislation the Senate needs a majority – which is Liberal/National + 5 Greens + Xenophon + Fielding as a block.
The Greens are obviously keen to see real and effective action to address climate change – and are therefore likely to oppose the CPRS in its current totally lame industry friendly form.
The Liberals are keen to score political advantage against the government by attacking them. I don’t think they currently know a lot about climate change and still have signficant numbers of CC denialists in their ranks. Still, if they see political advantage they could hold the line for a better outcome – even if for dubious motivation and/or reasons. Turnbull might be able to hold this together, but has a few jokers in the pack – such as Joyce for example.
How many Liberal/National senators are denialists? He will need to pull them into line too.
I have a sneeking suspiscion that Turnbull may have a bet each way here. Offering a zero target if Copenhagen is a farce and matching the US if there is a result and providing substantial subsidies to the heaviest industrial polluters.
Please correct me if I’m wrong on this, but the Liberals (including 1 CLP, but not the Nationals), Greens, and Xenophon have a total of 39 out of 76 Senate Seats — this should be enough to pass amendments to legislation.
Thanks wizofaus, the Oz story online this morning was saying 150 tonnes (in several places). They’ve fixed it. What’s a factor of a million, between friends?
Innumeracy abounds.
Greens move for wider ETS inquiry. Will Turnbull put up or shut up?
Doesn’t matter if the Lib’s position is based on (more) smoke & mirrors – this puts the ALP behind the game politically. Removes any excuse Rudd might try to run that he needs to cut a middle path to get CPRS thru parliament. Good development. Turnbull is cutting the denialists adrift here. And handing the Greens a king making role on the issue.
Really interesting as things usually are when the Libs attack from the left. Also, they are actually digging in on an issue that might give them some traction in the polls – unlike the stimulus package.
If I understand a carbon tax correctly, I think it would end up being a more effective measure.
If you’re losing the argument change the subject. The wise mother’s recipe for managing fractious children is a good strategy for politicians having problems managing the media. This also smacks of Howard in 2007 with his big bold policy announcements e.g. MDB program, back of the envelope, no Treasury modelling; nuclear power for clean energy, plants all over proposed with no state consultation; the NT intervention, even if it ignored expert recommendations in the LCAS Report. Turnbull’s picked this one because the government looks vulnerable on the ETS, particularly with the aborted enquiry which he wasn’t able to exploit last week with all his own static flying around.
Hopefully Rudd’s ability to see opportunity as well as danger in crisis will have him and the government on top of this. Could they possibly use this to have targets lifted, something the public seems to want, without sacrificing their 2010 timetable? They’ve done a lot of the groundwork already with business, and the general public are hungry for action and reasurance. The Coalition calling for higher targets could be useful. And surely the Greens have done enough horse trading in the past to manage this to some advantage. Time for Hockey to pay for that crass cosying up to Christine Milne on Q&A last Thursday.
I suppose best/worst case scenario is the Coalition being seen to have thwarted and delayed the ETS as proposed in the white paper, as delayers and spoilers.
To me, it looks like Turnbull is trying to attack from both the left and the right at the same time with their vague references to tougher targets, greater offsets, less onerous conditions for business, etc. It still isn’t clear whether they support an ETS, a carbon tax, or neither. If one of the first two, revenue won’t be infinite so they won’t be able to compensate households, reduce taxes for businesses, offer free permits (under the ETS) to large swathes of industry and boost funding for low-emission R&D. Something will have to give. My guess is that they are just trying to be all things to all people in the hope of clawing back some of their political disadvantage on climate change. I doubt they will be forthcoming with much detail, and I will be especially interested to see the detail of how they will incorporate agriculture and LULUC into any scheme – my understanding is that we are years away from being able to do that properly.
what wbb said at 36.
Indeed.
As many people have commented, it makes no sense as policy. It’s all about internal Liberal politics. The only way to unite the feuding camps and dampen down the leadership squabbles is to “go on the front foot and take the fight up to the government”. Apparently doing that doesn’t require making the slightest bit of sense. Anyone who’s been following Emo Man, Turnbull and Hockey since 2007 can see they don’t worry a lot about consistency – either over time or at the time they say something!
Well if Smokin Joe can give Christine Milne a hug on Q&A anything is possible.
As Mark says, if he sees political advantage, Turnbull will go there. Denialists will become pretty bored people. Soon they will only themselves to talk too. He won’t commit to any firm policy positions, just carp on about Labor. That’s politics.
A local Liberal MP here went rabid 4 years ago when I mentioned phasing off coal. He was genuinely distressed and shocked at the proposition.
Now he chats affably with local climate change action group members at festivals and happily discusses the topic. Of course the answer is geosequestration, but that charade wont last for much longer. And he would supported Labor’s brand new coal fired power station in Victoria if you could actually pin him down.
Unfortunately this game called politics could cost us a habitable planet. By the time the bozos wake up it may be too late.
Wong said on the 7:30 report tonight that “of course there are no free rides with the CPRS”. What about the free permits to the worst polluters and the cash payments to coal power stations. How could she say that? I didn’t think they were allowed to tell porkies.
I didn’t see it. Did Kerry O’Brien call her on that? If not, he’s not doing his job.
There are no “free” rides, but there are subsidised rides
Alternatively, there are no “free rides” in the sense that for every group you provide some sort of subsidy to, there is another that has to pay more – with an overall loss of efficiency to boot…
Got a link to the transcript for context for that quote?
“Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed” industries only get 90% of their permits for free, and some only get 60%. Perhaps that is why Penny said they do not get free rides. Some of these industries might not even get enough free permits to make windfall profits!
I hear a grab on ABC radio they said was from tonight’s 7:30 report. Her assertion, which I think is duplicitous, went unchallenged. She really is flaky on the CPRS. Defending the indefensible is a tough gig. Her CFMEU pedigree would help I think.
I am downloading the video to check it out.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/vodcast.htm
I’ve got the feeling that Wong isn’t really in control of climate change policy, but just doing the standard political thing of defending the brief – another lawyer in politics making the best possible case for something that doesn’t hold together.
It is certainly right that Wong isn’t in control of climate change policy – in the run up to the last election all the policy development was done from Rudd’s office, not Garret’s. Now there is a mix of inputs from Treasury, PMC, Climate Change, etc – but Rudd’s office will still be pulling a lot of strings.
Yep. Opinions differ on her presentational skills, though I think she’s pretty good if you don’t actually turn your mind to the logical holes in what she’s saying. But she strikes me as having a set of basically legal skills which probably help in negotiations. The trouble, from where I sit, and no doubt many others here, is with the brief.
I agree Mark. Wong gave very legalistic and guarded, sometimes confused responses.
Basically, she avoided really answering O’Brien’s questions about household efficiency savings resulting in less emissions from coal fired power stations who can then on sell these savings as permits to other polluters. She did not deny this. So it is true.
She did say “none of them (big polluters) get a free ride”.
Which is bullshit. Free permits to pollute are free.
O’Brien persisted in his line of questioning about the reallocation of emissions permits resulting from domestic savings (the R in CPRS).
Then right at the end Wong said reductions were achieved by reducing the cap over time. Pigs might fly.
I get the impression she really doesn’t know what she is talking about. Her ramblings about “energy efficiency contributions being important” were particularly lame; dishonest even.
The weak and voluntary Energy Efficiency Opportunties (and now the pink batts) is about is about the only thing they have done.
We need efficiency legislation, like they have in Europe and Canada. We need labelling or all consumer goods. We need energy efficiency ratings for appliances and heating and cooling as part of building standards, like they have in Europe and Canada etc etc.
They need to detach from the coal fired factories of death.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/730report/av/podcast/20090223-730-wong_video4.m4v
Thanks, Peter. With one thing and another, I’m really flat strapped at the moment so didn’t have time to watch it, and probably now won’t have time to chase up the video or transcript.
Here is an ABC news article that summaries the interview.
Wong denies ETS will undermine household cuts
Sorry Penny, I am confused. I thought free permits to pollute were free?
Huggy @v 25
The sad thing is, the quote sounds like gobbledegook at first, but if you read it a few times it’s accurate. It may be that “sink” and “reservoir” have everyday meanings that obscures the whole statement? (Or is “sequester” the main culprit?)
On the other hand, being accurate is insufficient. What folk want to know are things like: should we be planting millions of trees? Can agroforestry help store C? Does remnant bushland have a significant role to play in storing C? Is the C in old forests mainly in the trees or mainly in the soils? Are the oceans a much more significant C store than forests? What about C in soils generally, on farms for instance?
cheers
The permits are given out for free.
They may not allow the polluter to cover all their emissions however.
So they will have to buy some permits from others.How else will any company expand in future?
The carbon costs they accumulate through purchasing other items are a new cost.Think about the fuel they buy for example , the costs added by their suppliers, building materials will have a component
of their price reflecting the added costs of the carbon price.
.
If energy consumers decrease their electricity purchases then the emitter /electricity generator will have the possibility that their permits will be in excess of their needs and they can sell them .
.
You’d have to hope the government would reserve a special tax for those windfalls but clever accountancy will make all these profits as ephemeral as water vapour.
.
Bob Brown was quoted on the ABC as saying the cap can only be contracted ( shrunk ) each five years – not yearly as Senator Wong stated.
peterc @ 50 said:
Isn’t this an inherent part of a cap and trade system? How can you separate domestic and industry emissions when much of the CO2 generated by industry is for domestic use (eg electricity usage). Its a feature not a bug – at the right levels you effectively end up with incentives for electricity producers to encourage their clients (eg subsidise energy efficient appliances) to buy less electricity so they can either sell their permits or have to purchase fewer of them. The bug is the level at which the cap is currently set.
Of course, the counter to the moral boogaboo about voluntary actions by individuals giving evil business a free ride is that if domestic consumers pollute more, then businesses will have to buy more permits! Oh noes.
The ETS is amoral, not immoral. This is a major distraction. The matter that’s important is the fact that there will be too many permits generally, and too many of them free.
Mind you, I’m still very much in favour of carbon taxes, despite this argument from Pr Quiggin.
As for the separate thread about afforestation, the main thing is it’s really hard to account for and really risky. The cheap land and the productive land are not the same thing, except in SW Vic where it’s already covered in trees. We’re likely to get some perverse outcomes with a lot of non-indigenous bluegums left in places they shouldn’t really be for the next 150 years. Also, accounting for diverse plantings is hard to do.
This is all a risky business as trees will become stressed and die, and burn, leaving a big hole in budgets.
As for forestry, nobody has done a credible LCA comparing the full carbon accounting of timber products with the competing products such as tropical rainforest, concrete, aluminium.
Interesting hanging round the Sustainable Living festival in Melbun over the weekend that quite a few sustainable consumers were asking about not selling their certificates when they install a solar system. I overheard three separate people asking this, as well as a couple who asked when I was volunteering on the ATA stall. So it’s definitely something that more people are becoming aware of.
There’s also a much wider range of efficiency-enhancing gadgets coming through, and scarily the remote control power point gadgets are now cost-competitive with a multi-switch power board (which are ridiculously expensive). Of course, batteries not included
We sold a fair few plug-in power meters, one to a guy who just frankly did not believe me when I said that some cable/satellite decoders “standby” at more than 80% of their full consumption. So he’s going to run wild with the meter once he gets home.
On that note, our “chest fridge” is already showing value, using less than half the power of the upright fridge next to it even though it’s a dodgy old chest freezer we got off the side of the road (and paid $99 for a new fridge-range thermostat and $50 for trays to put inside). In a couple of weeks I expect we’ll sell the upright fridge and buy another chest freezer (to use as a freezer). Wandered round the local whitegood sellers last night and no-one makes a chest fridge or drawer fridge, they’re all upright and designed to spill as much cold air as possible when you open the door. Which is just dumb.
some cable/satellite decoders “standby” at more than 80% of their full consumption. So he’s going to run wild with the meter once he gets home.
I’d believe that – our cheap old SD one used to be hot all the time. But now our new telly has an onboard tuner, but the manual tells me it uses 0.9 watts when on standby. Pretty goo, I think it’s the new euro standard. Sadly, this was the only energy consumption info I could find at all while shopping for a new telly – there is zero consumer info out there to help choose a lower power model.
I first heard about chest fridges from a bloke in Gippsland with a website, he’d converted an old freezer and reckoned it was about 99% more efficient. Of course, most kitchens simply don’t have the space to do that right now, but my future house will I think. Fisher paykel sell one at exorbitant cost for not very much.
Ah, here’s the link: http://mtbest.net/chest_fridge.html
“Fisher paykel sell one at exorbitant cost for not very much”
…not very much…storage?
Thanks for the link, wilful. One of those will definitely be going into the retirement hovel.
Back in the 70s, quite a few homes had chest freezers – some folk bought meat in bulk, stored home-grown fruit, veges, etc.
Way before that the Coolgardie safe was a low cost item, low-energy running too.
wilful – I wonder if the energy efficiency ratings for chest freezes take into account that they don’t lose as much cold air when opened compared to uprights? I saw some chest freezes at Good Guys and weren’t impressed with their energy consumption numbers compared to uprights.
For information about TVs and other appliances’ energy consumption I’ve found manufacturer websites pretty good. Though from what I’ve seen most of their idle power consumption is pretty good these days <1W at which point its hardly worth turning them off completely.
moz @ 57 – have been thinking that one of the better things that the govt could do is make those power meters available for people to borrow (say through the local library). Its quite surprising how much (or little) energy devices really use.
Power meters are fairly cheap, and at least some councils have them available to borrow. The ATA rent an expensive one to members but it does more than their $70 model does. I think their cheap-ish $70 model is fine (beware the Jaycar cheap and nasty one, it’s not even slightly reliable – another ATA member and I each tested more than one and could not get consistent readings, let alone accurate ones). The advantage is they log data over time (but I can verify it using a multimeter).
Chest fridges… according to the factory seconds shop we buy our whitegoods from they can fit a fridge thermostat to a chest freezer quite cheaply. If you’re buying new, that is definitely the way to go.
The MtBest kit did not seem like good value to me – it’s unnecessarily complex and expensive. I used a mechanical thermostat from http://www.oatleyelectronics.com.au (like this http://secure.oatleyelectronics.com//product_info.php?products_id=122&osCsid=d2cd6449d7f250a8a199027a577acb5a but with a 5-35 degree range). Mechanical means no power consumption, and after a little judicious tweaking to shift the temperate range installed it into the freezer’s power cord. Plus it’s rated to switch 8A reactive so the freezer motor is no problem. Jaycar sell a controller device that’s worthless… 2-3 day battery life and only rated at 3A so will not deal with a compressor motor. Their kit has the same problem. The Oatley kit is better, but you still need to add a 10A/240V relay on the output side and feed 12V into it (easy enough if you have 12V from a RAPS system, but 3W+ constant drain if you only have 240V mains. The MtBest kit addresses this with a least-awful battery solution.
Anyhow… back to the politics
Sticking with the fridge to freezer thing for a bit longer… Wiz, yes, not much storage, for $2.2k. Chris, it’s all about where the cold air goes/doesn’t go. Like in supermarkets, all the freezers are open air. Plus, freezers are typically better insulated than fridges. Moz, do you need a fan to circulate cold air? i would suspect that stuff at the bottom would freeze, while stuff at the top wouldn’t get cold enough. BTW, I think health regs call for a range of 0 -4 degrees, not above that.
“when I was volunteering on the ATA stall”
Hey, you might have been filling in for my sick Lady Friend, Moz. Or at least picking up her slack.
She was really sick I promise.
Wilful, no problems with freezing so far. The coils seem to wrap the walls in our model (judging by the condensation patterns) and we have plastic shelving in there so we can get more in, but which also stops anything coming into contact with the walls directly and gives us a 1cm-ish air gap. Trying to find plastic storage based on size is a PITA, in case you’re interested. Our freezer has an over-the-compressor section that’s ~480×300 and 400 deep where we keep bottles and so on, then a 380x480x700 section that we finally found a set of plastic storage shelves for. Getting stuff out of the bottom layer means lifting the top layers out, but it’s quite manageable (we keep jars of random condiments in the bottom, then veges, then leftovers in the top, based on observed usage frequencies).
The modification I made was reading the manual where it said “denting or bending the bulb will result in lower switching temperatures than marked”, so I dented the bulb to get the temperatures I wanted
So it switches at 1 degree and 3.5 degrees, which seems to work ok.
Chest freezers, BTW, have a different star rating system than upright ones. At the same capacity and star rating a chest freezer uses a bit over half as much electricity (just based on reading labels)
we’re looking at $400-ish from the factory seconds place for a small chest freezer brand new. Hence we buy from them rather than big-box retailers…
wilful @ 64 – Wow they’ve really come down in price – last time I looked they were a couple of hundred dollars.
btw these are really nice for whole house monitoring. Has a serial port (which seems pretty rare on devices like this) so you can hook it up to your computer for better analysis and control.
As promised, why I think 150 Mt is conservative is here.
Is anyone here capable of interpreting the implications for climate politics and policy of the new federal Cabinet positions for Combet et al? At Crikey, Bernard Keane says “Wong the biggest loser in Rudd’s mini-shuffle” – I cannot actually access the article, so a synopsis would be welcome, but evidently his proposition is that the appointment of a parliamentary secretary for climate change and another for water signifies some diminution of Penny Wong’s power or authority. Actually, if anyone can say exactly what it means for the Department of Climate Change to be in the Prime Minister’s portfolio (it has been there since the beginning of this government), that might also be illuminating.