What would have happened if the government said to Holden, Ford, and even Mitsubishi, "We won't give you any more money unless you start making cars designed to run on LPG"? At the same time the government reduces the taxes on automotive LPG so it's about 15 cents a litre. We could all be driving around in comfortable big Australian made cars that cost less than 4 cylinder small car to run. Foreign car makers might not be able to match this as LPG is not so popular overseas for car fuel. Australia would also reduce its dependence on fuel imports.
^^^^ But that's not going to happen is it when you can export the gas overseas at a higher price? And why would any Gov. reduce taxes on fuel when they need the $$$$.
LPG is exported to Japan, South Korea, China etc for about one cent a litre. The producers could sell the gas here for a higher price as an automotive fuel.
It would be much more efficient to reduce a tax to encourage consumer spending than to subsidise foreign companies to make products few consumers want. Also any reduction in a LPG tax could be offset by increasing the excise on imported fuels. This would further increase the desirability of Australan made LPG powered cars.
Select to expand quoteGlitch said..
... to take a week off for a holiday there is no income for that week plus I then need to pay for the holiday so it is like having to pay twice...
Hate to rub it in, but no, you (we) pay thrice.
The money you fork out for the hol is after-tax, at roughly 50% including GST, income tax and others.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
LPG is exported to Japan, South Korea, China etc for about one cent a litre. The producers could sell the gas here for a higher price as an automotive fuel.
It would be much more efficient to reduce a tax to encourage consumer spending than to subsidise foreign companies to make products few consumers want. Also any reduction in a LPG tax could be offset by increasing the excise on imported fuels. This would further increase the desirability of Australan made LPG powered cars.
I think it is always going to be hard for a government to make a good change like this. No doubt the other political party (whoever was in power at the time) would criticise this move as ruining the country and making it hard for people that don't have LPG vehicles.
Sadly, no government would want to give up the excise without a guarantee the tax income was going to be higher.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
LPG is exported to Japan, South Korea, China etc for about one cent a litre. The producers could sell the gas here for a higher price as an automotive fuel.
Errrr, I think you're confused with LNG. However, why aren't we using LNG in our vehicles?
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
What would have happened if the government said to Holden, Ford, and even Mitsubishi, "We won't give you any more money unless you start making cars designed to run on LPG"?
Most holden cars come with LPG as a factory option.Select to expand quote Foreign car makers might not be able to match this as LPG is not so popular overseas for car fuel. Australia would also reduce its dependence on fuel imports.
Umm.... retrofit?Select to expand quote
I think it is always going to be hard for a government to make a good change like this. No doubt the other political party (whoever was in power at the time) would criticise this move as ruining the country and making it hard for people that don't have LPG vehicles.
The Government already subsidised retrofit of LPG tanks.
Select to expand quotedinsdale said..Mobydisc said..
LPG is exported to Japan, South Korea, China etc for about one cent a litre. The producers could sell the gas here for a higher price as an automotive fuel.
Errrr, I think you're confused with LNG. However, why aren't we using LNG in our vehicles?
Yeah you are right, it's LNG that is exported on a huge scale, not LPG. However the same idea applies. Australia now imports both expensive petrol and expensive cars. Meanwhile we export cheap LNG and very few cars. It would have interesting if the Government had encouraged Australian car manufacturers to develop vehicles to run on LNG. We might have a viable and prosperous car and LNG automotive infrastructure industries if we had gone down this path. Local cars would have had a competitive advantage as they could run on cheap fuel. it's possible foreign companies may not have wanted to retrofit their cars to run on LNG plus retrofits are usually less reliable than OEM.
Meanwhile the ways things are going, there may not be a local car manufacturing industry here in the foreseeable future.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..dinsdale said..Mobydisc said..
LPG is exported to Japan, South Korea, China etc for about one cent a litre. The producers could sell the gas here for a higher price as an automotive fuel.
Errrr, I think you're confused with LNG. However, why aren't we using LNG in our vehicles?
Yeah you are right, it's LNG that is exported on a huge scale, not LPG. However the same idea applies. Australia now imports both expensive petrol and expensive cars. Meanwhile we export cheap LNG and very few cars. It would have interesting if the Government had encouraged Australian car manufacturers to develop vehicles to run on LNG. We might have a viable and prosperous car and LNG automotive infrastructure industries if we had gone down this path. Local cars would have had a competitive advantage as they could run on cheap fuel. it's possible foreign companies may not have wanted to retrofit their cars to run on LNG plus retrofits are usually less reliable than OEM.
Meanwhile the ways things are going, there may not be a local car manufacturing industry here in the foreseeable future.
Hey, finally something I know a little bit about!
LNG does not compress at anywhere near the same ratio that LPG does. So it means that you need high pressure tanks, lots more volume, or both. I think they only way they can transport it overseas cost effectively is in specially designed tankers that lower temperature (a lot) in order to get sufficient volume.
AGL ran some trials, which must have been at least 10 years ago. I think they found that the range was very small, and unless there were enough filling stations around, it would never be viable. They even flirted with compressor/refilling stations that could be used in your home.
I think AGL even ran their own vans on it as part of the trial.
I think in reality, if you had a range requirement of 100kms a day, it would be worthwhile. I suspect that you should still be able to do it, as long as you have your own equipment.
Of course, without an easy way to get excise from it, because you could refill at home, I am not sure the government would be too keen on rolling this out. I guess you could somehow have sealed meters in the compressor and then pay a tax on that volume though.
It sounds like a bigger fuel tank is needed for LNG. Perhaps the idea of LNG powered passenger cars has been looked at and there are too many engineering and financial issues to solve. However I would imagine if a LNG powered car was available and you could fill it up for about $10 for 500 kms of driving, they would become very popular.
Personally this does not affect me that much one way or the other as I walk to work and also have a short walk to the shops. So I'm not doing much driving anymore. It must be pretty tough for those having to drive every day with petrol pretty well at the $1.50 level or above. It would cost close to $100 to fill up the tank of a larger car. What happens when petrol reaches $8 a litre like Dick Smith talked about on his show the other night?
Perhaps the age of the car is coming to an end. Getting your car licence and having a car does not seem to be the necessity it used to be for more younger city people and most people live in the cities.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
Perhaps the age of the car is coming to an end.
I wouldn't bet the house on it and I wouldn't bet $30-50,000 worth of new car on it
I have bet my '97 panel van, '94 Corolla and '84 Fairmont on it though. All are relatively economical to drive (fuel and repairs) and serve my needs for a utility or camping vehicle, sports car and economy long distance travelling and luxury driving.
All up initial investment circa $8,000 and estimated current market value circa $16,000.
Automobile manufacturers and oil companies are intimately and symbiotically co joined at the neck and ripping us off rapaciously therefore the thought of the Australian taxpayer subsidizing a foreign owned auto manufacturer is repugnant and defies logic.
As somebody suggested, buy the land they sit on with a caveat over the plant and equipment that should they close down in the next 20 years, they forfeit the plant and equipment.
In that eventuality an Australian owned and operated manufacturer could be set up to build vehicles specifically designed for Australian conditions.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
It sounds like a bigger fuel tank is needed for LNG. Perhaps the idea of LNG powered passenger cars has been looked at and there are too many engineering and financial issues to solve. However I would imagine if a LNG powered car was available and you could fill it up for about $10 for 500 kms of driving, they would become very popular.
Personally this does not affect me that much one way or the other as I walk to work and also have a short walk to the shops. So I'm not doing much driving anymore. It must be pretty tough for those having to drive every day with petrol pretty well at the $1.50 level or above. It would cost close to $100 to fill up the tank of a larger car. What happens when petrol reaches $8 a litre like Dick Smith talked about on his show the other night?
Perhaps the age of the car is coming to an end. Getting your car licence and having a car does not seem to be the necessity it used to be for more younger city people and most people live in the cities.
Moby, LNG has a few issues when its pressured to LNG. There are a multitude of gasses that make up the product. Depending on what temperature its released into the engine, will depend on if it develops a good fire front at ignition, or knocks like sh1t
Have spent some considerable man hours sorting this out to have a product that is OK to use.
The next issue is that left to its own device, the product will start to settle in its cryogenic tank after about 24 hours, and the gases will settle in levels, not what you want when its entering the combustion area.
Vehicles with full tanks ?cant be stored inside? due to venting issues as it boils off with rise and fall of ambient temperatures.
Compressed natural gas is the better option.
saw similar thing near Cardiff,wales. Boeing had built a massive complex as part of an building complex, but when the deal with the local authorities ran out they got a better subsidy to move somewhere else and simply walked out and built elsewhere
sigh..... bring back the good days of olde when you and everyone you knew got a great paying job for life starting at the age of 15, even with an IQ of 7, and every day everyone went home with a free wheel barrow, toilet paper, can of RP7, cutlery, batteries, pencils, tools, coffee mugs, food, car parts, door mats...............etc........and got to spend half your working day whinging about how sh!t your working conditions were between naps
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
It sounds like a bigger fuel tank is needed for LNG.
you do realize that LNG is at about -160C? it require LOT of insulation and constant cooling (all of which is expensive) otherwise it goes back to gas. basically you can't store it like petrol or other gases.
I strongly disagree with some on the non union comments.But im not going to get fired up on this. Alot of oldboys work hard to give your job and conditions. Unfortunately some people exploit unions and it leads to a bad branding. We just seek a pay rise to accommodate inflation and and a safe work environment. People at the top to share out the money they are putting in there pockets and give the working class a fair go.
There is alot of benefits (like lawyers) your entitled to as a member.
I couldn't find any anti-union sentiment in this thread buster. Maybe my posts come close, and they are not anti-union, they are reality. GMH have the employees and union and by the balls. I can't see what bargaining power they could possibly have? Proven by the union agreeing to the terms today if I heard on the news correctly.
Sure there are some over the top militant unions out there but by and large the majority do a good job, the $1000 a year I give my union is money well spent and I've only had to call on mine once in 12 years.
SWOOSH
Everything is proportional. In some cases it needs to be fought for. Dont ever think your the one that will save a company your just another number on the books trying to make a living.As much as you suck dick to provide white collar with cost cutting exercises. Guys White collar wanker like you are finished ! Take your 1 weeks pay anc **** off !
When you get some time do a google search on 'Globalization' and 'The race to the bottom' for some interesting thoughts for the workforce in Australia.
Select to expand quotebusterwa said..
.But im not going to get fired up on this. /quote]busterwa said..
.As much as you suck dick to provide white collar with cost cutting exercises. Guys White collar wanker like you are finished ! Take your 1 weeks pay anc **** off !
/Wow. I'd hate to see you fired up.
Looks like thirsty Thursday is taking hold. Typical union sheep.
(heavy weather ahoy
).
edit: GMH is in a sense adapting to what many company's have been doing 15 years ago.
How do people think they get their groceries and grog, certainly not through some magic carpet. We need people on all levels to supply us with goods so we can survive. Most warehouse pickers have percentage rates depicting their pay, regular drug test and big brother over their shoulder all day and get paid peanuts not to mention 15min breaks with time card systems docking pay if your 1 min back from lunch and having to ask permission for a toilet break.
You might see these rough people on the street and say what a menace to society but these peoples help put food on your plate as they are a quiet majority with no say.
Do they winge? They do not get a pay rise. To most they are bottom feeders, They are the true workforce. Jobs we need filled to live.
It's really disappointing that some people are so selfish just because they work in a highly media operated job site that they deserve/expect more.
I do know that I would rather be working in a crappy job (no union) driving around in some rusted out old laser than some clown driving around in a new car winging that my pay did not go up $27 a week to meet inflation whilst I am at least employed with a roof over my head and appreciate what I have. Had a union job once, they striked and tried to force me to join so I just moved on.
