Fuel Price

[Whippet]

Hi.

Some of the dot points in the below source are stark and quite significant. In Australia, one in five bags of groceries are wasted, the food production from land the equivalent area of Victoria is wasted.

I wonder if the cost of fuel & fertiliser increasing the cost of food will result in changing behaviour for consumers. I suspect not, they will just whinge about the increased cost of living and not look to see what habits they can change in their own household.

We are far from perfect, and throw out food on a weekly basis. If food really was in short supply I suspect people would eat most of what they have available to them. I personally don't like when meat and meat products are wasted, I believe that we should enjoy our meat, but also respect where it comes from. Consumers are far from the source of their food and I suspect have no appreciation of how it gets onto their plate.

I wonder how much fuel could be saved by not transporting the $33.6b of wasted food, and how much electricity could be saved by not refrigerating the perishable portion of wasted food?

I know that we can never achieve 100% of consumption matching supply, but if the information is correct, 1/3rd of world food being wasted seems quite a lot.

I suspect it is a similar story for fiber production.

From here: https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/food-waste

• One third of the world's food is wasted.
• 25% of water used in agriculture is used to grow food that is ultimately wasted – throwing away one burger wastes the same amount of water as a 90 minute shower.
• Food waste produces eight per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest greenhouse gas emitter, behind the USA and China.

Food waste is also a major problem in Australia. The National Food Waste Strategy Feasibility Study produced by Food Innovation Australia Limited reported that:

• Food waste costs the economy around $36.6 billion each year.
• Each year we waste around 7.6 million tonnes of food across the supply and consumption chain – this wastage equals about 312kg per person, equivalent to around one in five bags of groceries or $2,000 to $2,500 per household per year.
• Food waste accounts for approximately 3% of Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.
• Australia uses around 2600 gigalitres of water to grow food that is wasted – this equates to the volume of water in five Sydney Harbours.
• The amount of land used to grow wasted food covers in excess of 25 million hectares, a landmass larger than the state of Victoria.

Have a nice day.
Cheers.

 

[Russell Hall]

Remember when houses used to have a pig bin for food scraps and once a week the pig man would come around to collect them with his horse and wagon? Perhaps only in country towns. I was told not to cheek him because he was Irish so I was very wary of him. And for some time all Irishmen. Swill feeding was eventually banned because of the risk of introducing Foot and Mouth disease. My old Lutheran ancestors used to say wasting food was a sin and would never burn food scraps. I could never put food in the garbage. What the dogs don't have the chooks get.

 

[Whippet]

If we did upwards of 30,000 kms a year, I would already have a Tesla.

Hi.

I would like a BEV, but I don't want to drive "an iPhone on wheels" hence a Tesla does not appeal to me. Hopefully as more mainstream manufacturers transition from ICE to BEV, we will be able to choose from vehicles that have a bit more charactor and fewer touchscreens. At the moment the Ionic5 seems to be heading in the right direction as an alternative to Tesla, but supply and cost will be a disencentive for many.

I believe that Australia will catch up with the rest of the world, and I suspect it will occur in a whoosh, as we catch up the wasted years of opportunity. For drivers that travel more than 15k to 20k km per year, BEV will become an increasingly attractive option for drivers, as the cost per 100km will be about 20% or less than what is is for hydrocarbon fuels.

The below article is from The Age 22 March 2022. I believe that Governments can't continue to kick this can down the road and the points raised in this article will need to addressed within the next five years. For the record, I want to pay my fair share for road infrastructure and maintenance.

Axe the fuel excise ... do this instead​

Jessica Irvine

The real question is not whether we should abolish the fuel excise, but what we should replace it with.
Roll up, roll up your sleeves and fasten your high-vis safety vests: we’re about to hit peak hard-hat season.
Next Tuesday’s federal budget is just the scene-setting, opening act, of course. In it, the Treasurer will no doubt announce a dazzling array of critical new road projects totalling to some impressive record multiple-billion sum. You get a road corridor update! And a new dual lane highway! And a car park!
Then, as the official election campaign gets under way, it will become apparent – via multiple photo ops – just how conveniently these highways happen to run through marginal seats. Fancy that!
It’s all funded, of course, from general government revenues, including that dreaded fuel excise we’re all now busily discussing abolishing.
Truth is, fuel excise is already fading away as a viable source of ongoing revenue. More fuel-efficient cars, along with the rise of electronic vehicles, means excise revenue is shrinking as a share of total revenue and will continue to do so.
The real question is not whether we should abolish it but what we should replace it with to make sure we can all enjoy a well-maintained road system.
Economists say the answer lies in introducing ‘‘road-user charging’’. That is, road users should be charged a tax or fee proportionate to the wear and tear they inflict on our roads. This could be done via systems that monitor distance travelled, and/or by charging people who drive at particular times of day or into busy areas, such as CBDs – also known as ‘‘congestion charging’’.
Presently, road users fork out multiple payments for using roads. There’s the largely invisible fuel excise, of course, presently worth about 44 cents per litre. Then there are fees paid to the state for vehicle registration and licenses. When you buy a car, you’ll also pay stamp duty.
In its 2017 Shifting the Dial report, the Productivity Commission calculated these charges add up to more than $1300 per vehicle a year, regardless of whether your car is in the garage most of the week or you commute two hours a day.
The commission’s report recommended trials of distance-based charging systems, whereby participants would be charged per kilometre they drove, but refunded any fuel excise paid.
Commissioner Michael Brennan has been a vocal advocate of replacing fuel excise with road-user charges, including congestion charging. Putting a clear price signal on road usage not only raises revenue, it also gives an incentive to avoid high-charge times of day, thus reducing rushhour congestion.
Congestion remains a drag on our economic growth. As former Treasury secretary Ken Henry envisaged in 2010: ‘‘Less congested roads, shorter travel times and investment in road infrastructure that addresses user demand would provide a foundation for further productivity growth, improved living standards and more sustainable cities.’’ Henry’s recommendation was clear: ‘‘In major cities, location-specific congestion charges should vary according to the time of day.’’
Despite concerns such congestion charges would hit lower-income, outersuburban commuters the hardest, a report by the Grattan Institute in 2019 found congestion charges are actually progressive: ‘‘Drivers to the CBD are overwhelmingly higher-income and tend to live in the middle or inner suburbs.’’
That’s unlike fuel excise, which is regressive in nature. As a tax review headed by former Telstra boss David Thodey last year found: ‘‘It disproportionately affects those on lower incomes who tend to own older, less fuelefficient vehicles and commute further.’’
But technology is evolving. Thodey’s review canvassed several options for road-user charging, ranging from selfreporting of odometers, to tolling-like technology to clock number plates, to special meters installed in all vehicles.
Think about it. If I can order UberEats and watch my driver’s second-by-second route to my home live via an app, surely we can design a system that tracks roaduse in real time.
We could then also make sure revenue goes directly to fund road maintenance.
Again, that’s not how it works today. Today, according to the Productivity Commission: ‘‘Most of the revenue from these charges [such as fuel excise] is pooled into governments’ general (consolidated) funds, from which expenditure on roads (and other public services) is allocated through budget processes. The indirect nature of raising revenue for roads means that there is no guarantee that investments are being made in areas that will provide the greatest value to road users.’’
It shouldn’t be left to hard-hatted politicians on the eve of re-election to announce bedazzled new roadways and commuter car parks in marginal seats.
Instead, we should trial and introduce road-user charges, with revenue collected by state governments, poured straight into ‘‘road funds’’, from which money is allocated to projects selected by independent authorities, based on rigorous cost-benefit analysis of projects, in consultation with road users. Now I’d vote for that.
Jessica Irvine is a senior economics writer.

 

[Russell Hall]

The cost of the inputs for electrics is rising sharply. Nickel is heading for $US 37,000 a tonne and had a short spike to $100,000 on rumours of Russian supply being cut, cobalt is $80,000 a tonne and the price of lithium has increased by 600% this year.
A Caspian pipeline has been damaged by a storm. Reduces the flow of non-sanctioned Kazakh oil by 2.5 million barrels a day. Significant in the present market given the attempt to cut Russia out of western oil supply.

 

[Haakon]

@Whippet have you driven one? I spent a little time in a Tesla Model 3 and it’s an epically good drivers car. Superb handling, great balance and stupidly quick.

But what the electric drivetrain gives you is formula 1 levels of throttle response. The power is always instant available at any speed and any conditions. And combined with a wonderful chassis, you can throw it around and balance it on the throttle. It’s a really involving and rewarding car to drive

 

[Haakon]

You also get big benefits with the traction control - being literally digital, it’s by far the best I’ve ever experienced. You really need it with the huge amount of torque these things have, but it’s totally undetectable in operation. It’s perfectly limiting power, not having to muck around trying to limit combustion events or fiddle with brake applications…

Tesla have tuned it with a fair bit of slip too - leave your window open and enjoy the aural feedback of tyres finding their limits

 

[Whippet]

@Whippet have you driven one? I spent a little time in a Tesla Model 3 and it’s an epically good drivers car. Superb handling, great balance and stupidly quick.

But what the electric drivetrain gives you is formula 1 levels of throttle response. The power is always instant available at any speed and any conditions. And combined with a wonderful chassis, you can throw it around and balance it on the throttle. It’s a really involving and rewarding car to drive

Hi.

I am now very envious. I was booked in to test drive a Tesla to discover and experience all that you have mentioned. I even completed all of the several online tutorials. I just wasn't prepared to sign the Tesla USA unlimited liability waiver for the test drive. My pockets aren't that deep and I couldn't obtain any insurance to cover my test drive. They then offered a $4,000 excess for me to be liable for, telling me that it was for any damage caused by me. But when I read the clause it was for any damage to the vehicle however caused. I was prepared to be responsible for what I did, but not for something out of my direct control. I did offer to be a passenger and the customer service person to drive the vehicle, but this was not accepted. Hence the test drive didn't proceed.

But I am still keen to experience one.

 

[Haakon]

Hi.

I am now very envious. I was booked in to test drive a Tesla to discover and experience all that you have mentioned. I even completed all of the several online tutorials. I just wasn't prepared to sign the Tesla USA unlimited liability waiver for the test drive. My pockets aren't that deep and I couldn't obtain any insurance to cover my test drive. They then offered a $4,000 excess for me to be liable for, telling me that it was for any damage caused by me. But when I read the clause it was for any damage to the vehicle however caused. I was prepared to be responsible for what I did, but not for something out of my direct control. I did offer to be a passenger and the customer service person to drive the vehicle, but this was not accepted. Hence the test drive didn't proceed.

But I am still keen to experience one.

Wow, I must have missed that fine print... The $4000 excess certainly gave me serious pause though, cant say i was comfortable with that!

I got about an hour in mine (id helped out the young sales person at the Canberra Tesla store by educating her on the car!! I was surprised she didnt have easy access to the information...) and I took it out on some fun roads nearby that I knew.

There are some Model 3 in the Hertz fleet now though - might be a safer way and you'll get a whole day with it.

 

[Haakon]

I did once refuse a test drive on a Toyota 86 years ago in Melbourne due to their $3500 excess... Most have been around 1500 which would still hurt but be manageable.

 

[Whippet]

Wow, I must have missed that fine print... The $4000 excess certainly gave me serious pause though, cant say i was comfortable with that!

I got about an hour in mine (id helped out the young sales person at the Canberra Tesla store by educating her on the car!! I was surprised she didnt have easy access to the information...) and I took it out on some fun roads nearby that I knew.

There are some Model 3 in the Hertz fleet now though - might be a safer way and you'll get a whole day with it.

Hi.
I suspect that very few test drivers read the waiver that they are asked to sign. The Tesla was the most onerous that I have seen for test driving vehicles, mostly they are about speeding fines. I am not a legal person, but do have some familiarity with identifying unlimited liability and indemnity’s in contracts, so I now always read what I sign.

I would hate to be the sales person that was allocated to service me, like you I suspect my research would be more than many sales peoples knowledge. It's a characteristic of mine, but I try my best to shut up and just listen, then whinge to Mrs Whippet when the experience is finished!

The Hertz option to arrange a test drive might be an option. I guess I was wanting to be a bit opportunistic and get a sample of the BEV experience at someone else’s’ cost.

Cheers.

 

[Whippet]

The cost of the inputs for electrics is rising sharply. Nickel is heading for $US 37,000 a tonne and had a short spike to $100,000 on rumours of Russian supply being cut, cobalt is $80,000 a tonne and the price of lithium has increased by 600% this year.
A Caspian pipeline has been damaged by a storm. Reduces the flow of non-sanctioned Kazakh oil by 2.5 million barrels a day. Significant in the present market given the attempt to cut Russia out of western oil supply.

Hi.

According to this site: https://www.drive.com.au/news/gover...n-australias-fuel-security-in-federal-budget/

• Australia had 21 days of diesel and slightly more of petrol fuel available in Oct 2020.
• Australia currently has around 68 days of crude oil in reserves – the base product from which petrol and diesel is refined. As a member of the International Energy Agency, Australia is meant to keep a minimum of 90 days of oil reserves.

My comment: This is only beneficial while the two remaining refineries are still operational.

From my perspective the benefit of getting most of the passenger vehicle fleet onto electric energy, is that in times when we can't access fuel supplies from overseas, as we can’t supply our demand domestically; we can be relatively more self-reliant for domestic electricity generation. I assume many other countries would be in a similar situation.

The second advantage is that the limited hydrocarbon fuel reserves could then become more available for transportation, farming, aviation and other industrial needs that are not yet equipped to use electricity or hydrogen, or may not ever be able to substitute hydrocarbon fuels.

Also if we were able to cut the umbilical to consuming natural gas for domestic heating & cooking etc, and use other solar and electric options, then how much more gas would be available for manufacture of explosives and fertilisers? I have not tried to determine the details, it’s just a thought bubble.

Cheers.

 

[Greenpeace]

Trouble is as Russel's post points out; something that is already unaffordable to the masses doesn't seem like it's going to get more affordable any time soon, what with the escalation in the prices of the raw materials that go into making them along with the blow out in transportation costs to get them to the consumer. Hard to imagine EVs are going to come down in price at all in the current climate.

 

[JoBo]

Hi.

I would like a BEV, but I don't want to drive "an iPhone on wheels" hence a Tesla does not appeal to me. Hopefully as more mainstream manufacturers transition from ICE to BEV, we will be able to choose from vehicles

that have a bit more charactor and fewer touchscreens. At the moment the Ionic5 seems to be heading in the right direction as an alternative to Tesla, but supply and cost will be a disencentive for many.

I believe that Australia will catch up with the rest of the world, and I suspect it will occur in a whoosh, as we catch up the wasted years of opportunity. For drivers that travel more than 15k to 20k km per year, BEV will become an increasingly attractive option for drivers, as the cost per 100km will be about 20% or less than what is is for hydrocarbon fuels.

The below article is from The Age 22 March 2022. I believe that Governments can't continue to kick this can down the road and the points raised in this article will need to addressed within the next five years. For the record, I want to pay my fair share for road infrastructure and maintenance.

Axe the fuel excise ... do this instead​

Jessica Irvine

The real question is not whether we should abolish the fuel excise, but what we should replace it with.
Roll up, roll up your sleeves and fasten your high-vis safety vests: we’re about to hit peak hard-hat season.
Next Tuesday’s federal budget is just the scene-setting, opening act, of course. In it, the Treasurer will no doubt announce a dazzling array of critical new road projects totalling to some impressive record multiple-billion sum. You get a road corridor update! And a new dual lane highway! And a car park!
Then, as the official election campaign gets under way, it will become apparent – via multiple photo ops – just how conveniently these highways happen to run through marginal seats. Fancy that!
It’s all funded, of course, from general government revenues, including that dreaded fuel excise we’re all now busily discussing abolishing.
Truth is, fuel excise is already fading away as a viable source of ongoing revenue. More fuel-efficient cars, along with the rise of electronic vehicles, means excise revenue is shrinking as a share of total revenue and will continue to do so.
The real question is not whether we should abolish it but what we should replace it with to make sure we can all enjoy a well-maintained road system.
Economists say the answer lies in introducing ‘‘road-user charging’’. That is, road users should be charged a tax or fee proportionate to the wear and tear they inflict on our roads. This could be done via systems that monitor distance travelled, and/or by charging people who drive at particular times of day or into busy areas, such as CBDs – also known as ‘‘congestion charging’’.
Presently, road users fork out multiple payments for using roads. There’s the largely invisible fuel excise, of course, presently worth about 44 cents per litre. Then there are fees paid to the state for vehicle registration and licenses. When you buy a car, you’ll also pay stamp duty.
In its 2017 Shifting the Dial report, the Productivity Commission calculated these charges add up to more than $1300 per vehicle a year, regardless of whether your car is in the garage most of the week or you commute two hours a day.
The commission’s report recommended trials of distance-based charging systems, whereby participants would be charged per kilometre they drove, but refunded any fuel excise paid.
Commissioner Michael Brennan has been a vocal advocate of replacing fuel excise with road-user charges, including congestion charging. Putting a clear price signal on road usage not only raises revenue, it also gives an incentive to avoid high-charge times of day, thus reducing rushhour congestion.
Congestion remains a drag on our economic growth. As former Treasury secretary Ken Henry envisaged in 2010: ‘‘Less congested roads, shorter travel times and investment in road infrastructure that addresses user demand would provide a foundation for further productivity growth, improved living standards and more sustainable cities.’’ Henry’s recommendation was clear: ‘‘In major cities, location-specific congestion charges should vary according to the time of day.’’
Despite concerns such congestion charges would hit lower-income, outersuburban commuters the hardest, a report by the Grattan Institute in 2019 found congestion charges are actually progressive: ‘‘Drivers to the CBD are overwhelmingly higher-income and tend to live in the middle or inner suburbs.’’
That’s unlike fuel excise, which is regressive in nature. As a tax review headed by former Telstra boss David Thodey last year found: ‘‘It disproportionately affects those on lower incomes who tend to own older, less fuelefficient vehicles and commute further.’’
But technology is evolving. Thodey’s review canvassed several options for road-user charging, ranging from selfreporting of odometers, to tolling-like technology to clock number plates, to special meters installed in all vehicles.
Think about it. If I can order UberEats and watch my driver’s second-by-second route to my home live via an app, surely we can design a system that tracks roaduse in real time.
We could then also make sure revenue goes directly to fund road maintenance.
Again, that’s not how it works today. Today, according to the Productivity Commission: ‘‘Most of the revenue from these charges [such as fuel excise] is pooled into governments’ general (consolidated) funds, from which expenditure on roads (and other public services) is allocated through budget processes. The indirect nature of raising revenue for roads means that there is no guarantee that investments are being made in areas that will provide the greatest value to road users.’’
It shouldn’t be left to hard-hatted politicians on the eve of re-election to announce bedazzled new roadways and commuter car parks in marginal seats.
Instead, we should trial and introduce road-user charges, with revenue collected by state governments, poured straight into ‘‘road funds’’, from which money is allocated to projects selected by independent authorities, based on rigorous cost-benefit analysis of projects, in consultation with road users. Now I’d vote for that.
Jessica Irvine is a senior economics writer.

Why not go all the way and introduce/change to a modified Henry George taxation system?

 

[Russell Hall]

Well I'm pleased to say that I've moved from the environmental outlands to becoming acceptable. Proves the theory that if you stand still and keep doing the same thing the world rotates around you. "Biomass" generated energy is now kosher in the EU. So the old four oven Rayburn and the open fire are in and if only I had a steam traction engine I could virtuously trundle around the countryside. Doing anything with steam was always so much more dramatic.
People used to talk about Henry George but I haven't heard him mentioned in ages. I remember there used to be an office for the Henry George League in Melbourne in the 1960's.

 

[chris hartwell]

If you think Biomass is a solution , take a look at "Planet of the Humans" on you tube.

 

[Russell Hall]

I don't think it's a solution, I think its funny that what we have always done (burn firewood) now has a respectable name and role in the ever correct EU.

 

[Kim Luck]

I don't think it's a solution, I think its funny that what we have always done (burn firewood) now has a respectable name and role in the ever correct EU.

I wonder if you still have your dad's gas generator in a shed somewhere Russell? They were pretty big in the days of petrol rationing........

 

[Russell Hall]

Alas no. Nor do I have a steam engine although I would love one but they were mostly replaced in the 1920's by big kero/petrol engines.
I have got a 36volt wind generator.

 

[Kim Luck]

I was always a big fan of Ted Pritchard's. As well as his work on steam car engines he produced a series of farm engines specifically designed to use methane from pig shit or similar to keep the home fires (and lights) burning.......

 

[Whippet]

Why not go all the way and introduce/change to a modified Henry George taxation system?

Hi JoBo.

I am unfamiliar with Henry George taxation system and had to research the concept. I am neither an economist nor a social reformer and don't have the experience and knowledge to constructively comment. I am struggling to see the connection with my post though which was essentially about my interest in BEV, the transition from ICE to BEV in Australia catching up with other countries and what we will need to do as a consequence for road infrastructure and maintenance revenue & funding.

But, with the "short-term-ism" in Australian governments, and their inability to implement even limited tax reform, I very much doubt that a Georgism single tax paradigm would get on the agenda, if indeed we even needed it.

Cheers.