The implicit price of carbon

I was too busy to post when it came out, but the Climate Institute has recently issued an important report on the implicit carbon price associated with such measures as renewable energy quotas. The take home message is that major economies, either directly or indirectly, are putting in place carbon prices. China’s current implicit price, for example (in PPP terms), is roughly either times higher than Australia’s and three to four times higher than the USA and Japan.

You can read more here.

An important implication is that concerns about Australia “acting alone” or “getting out in front” are misplaced. We are, as we have been for most of the past decade, at the back of the international pack. One day, this will come home to hurt us.

61 thoughts on “The implicit price of carbon

  1. @BilB

    I’m left wondering what you did before you retirement? taxi driver? news anchor? wedding planner? I really can’t tell from your logic. I’d like to know.

    I go through your arguments in detail while your main arguments have been ad hom. Nothing new here.

  2. There was no detail in your “critique”, Chris. Apart from that, the whole thing was no longer relevent to this thread. So what is your background?

  3. The major economies are putting in place carbon prices. Others like China are doing a bit (lot) of nation building and putting in fast trains…while QLD dithers with a luxury carriage upgrade to the Cairns tourism centre up north (toys) and the last thing done to rail in NSW was a quick monorail loop (another toy) that mostly runs pretty empty around darling harbour for the tourists –

    We are at the back of the pack as usual – when other countries are now advancing Australia has taken neopoliticism to the xtreme.

    I just wish we could have the words “nation building” front and forward and the words “rational” and “efficient” chucked in the passe saying bin along with “hit the ground running”.

    The right or ultra right influence in Australia is so souless crass and greedy. It also makes both parties redundant.

  4. @BilB

    There was no detail in your “critique”,

    Just one small example:

    I read that there is now a determined effort under way to develop low cost derivatives of fulvaline diruthenium now that the energy holding mechanism is fully understood. This promises indefinite storage of heat energy from the sun completely closing any remaining gaps in the energy delivery cycle for both concentrating solar thermal systems and concentrating solar photovoltaic.

    It has nothing to do with photovoltaic.

    You can’t even admit that you were wrong to imply that heat storage has anything to do with photovoltaics. “No detail”? Tell us another one.

    Apart from that, the whole thing was no longer relevent to this thread.

    You started it. Obviously you think you’re entitled to talk off-thread garbage.

    So what is your background?

    You just don’t get it do you? I have no interest in paticipating in ad homs.

  5. Solar photovoltaic and heat absorbing/storing technologies are entirely compatible partners potentially more than doubling the overall efficiencies and suitable for a huge number of total energy solutions. You will learn this in time. I’m going to assume union representative, based on the predominately aggressive posture.

  6. Talk about pace of technological development. Here is a German article that was reported by a blogger in Seoul. The linked article is in German but the substance is in the text. The essential point is that this a conversion of a standard sedan car with all regular features. Wowow!

    “The yellow and purple Audi A2 car took around seven hours to complete the 600-kilometre (372-mile) stretch, even had the heating on.

    Driver Mirko Hannemann, the chief of DBM Energy, drove the distance at 90 km/h (55 miles per hour) on average, had the heat on and was able to whisk around a few more miles in the city. When the A2 electric finished, it still had 18% of the initial electric charge in the battery.

    The battery weighs about 100 kilograms in total. (

    It has a lithium-metal-polymer battery. DBM Energy, the company that built the battery and electric motors into the Audi A2, said the battery would function for 500,000 kilometres.
    A representative of the car said the Audi still featured all the usual creature comforts such as power steering, air-conditioning and even heated seats as well, so it was not like the car was especially made for long distance record attempts
    The German engineers said their car was special because the battery was not installed inside the luggage area, but under the luggage area, meaning the full interior space of the car was still available
    The battery, based on what DBM Energy calls the KOLIBRI AlphaPolymer Technology, comes with 97 percent efficiency and can be charged at virtually every socket. Plugged into a high-voltage direct-current source, the battery can be fully loaded within 6 minutes

    The young inventor couldn’t give an exact price for his battery — he said that was dependent on scaling effects — but vowed it wouldn’t just be more powerful, but in the end also cheaper than conventional lithium ion batteries.

    What’s more important, the technology which made the trip possible is available today.
    German Economics Minister Rainer Bruederle, who subsidized the drive, said it showed electric cars are not utopian but really work.”

    This doesn’t leave much doubt as to the direction that our future is headed, and why the Australian government no matter which side or which colour had better pull its head out of its arse and get on with the job.

  7. @BilB

    Solar photovoltaic and heat absorbing/storing technologies are entirely compatible partners

    Heat storage cannot store or be used for the energy produced by photovoltaics in any economic way. “Compatible” is economically meaningless. You also ignored the fact that even if heat storage was cheap, solar thermal is still expensive.

    potentially more than doubling the overall efficiencies

    What, pray tell, do you mean here by “efficiency”?

  8. Chris, if you cannot fathom what this is about then you are out of your depth. Go argue something that you can understand.

    So what did your think of the Lithium-metal-polymer battery test? 600klm range with reserve, 100Kg weight (far less lithium), 97 percent efficient, 8 minutes to charge, service life 500,000 klm. It may require some creative solutions to enable charging at that rate in the service station type scenario, perhaps very large flywheel motor generators. Assuming that all of that stacks up in production then I would say that the petrol engine is ready to fade slowly into history.

    Well I’m impressed.

  9. @BilB

    Chris, if you cannot fathom what this is about then you are out of your depth.

    There you go again, just another ad hom after I respond in detail.

    Go argue something that you can understand.

    Take you own advice.

    By the way, it’s all very well to talk about electric car technology but, contradicting your own complaint, the thread was more to do about where the electricity is supposed to come from.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s