Energy Options » GOVERNMENTS

ENERGY SKILLS QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT AUSTRALIA HOLD ENERGY CONFERENCE

Editor — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:30:31 +0000

ENERGY SKILLS QUEENSLAND TO HAVE ENERGY CONFERENCE

More info here >>>

http://www.fcci.com.au/2011/08/1246/

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL CELEBRATES EARTH HOUR BY TURNING OFF ITS LIGHTS

Editor — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 06:59:13 +0000

Switch off a power of good

BY HENRIETTA COOK

27 Mar, 2011 01:00 AM

CANBERRA was transformed from a dazzling city into a sea of darkness last night as businesses, public institutions and households switched off their lights in support of Earth Hour.The best place to view the transformation was at the peak of Mt Ainslie, where crowds of people rugged up and eagerly waited for 8.30pm to arrive.

Parliament House, the National Gallery and the War Memorial were plunged into darkness as the city took part in one of the world’s largest climate change initiatives.

Businesses that stood in darkness included Tuggeranong’s Hyperdome Shopping Centre, Crowne Plaza and the Ernst & Young Building.

The Sydney Opera House was the first of many global landmarks to go dark last night, followed by the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the world’s tallest building in Dubai.

”The amount of power that’s saved during that time is not really what it’s about,” Earth Hour co-founder and executive director Andy Ridley said in Sydney, where the movement began in 2007.

”What it is meant to be about is showing what can happen when people come together.”

Mr Ridley said a record 134 countries or territories were on board for the event, which organisers have dubbed the world’s largest voluntary action for the environment.

Other landmarks that will go dark for the hour are Times Square in New York, Beijing’s Bird’s Nest Stadium that hosted the 2008 Olympic Games, the London Eye and Brazil’s Christ the Redeemer statue.

Restaurants across Canberra shunned harsh lights in favour of candles, adding an air of romanticism to even the most casual meals.

Caphs in Manuka switched off its lights and provided diners with a candle-lit dinner experience.

Owner Emanual Notaras, who has run the restaurant for 18 years, said this was the third year the business had been involved in the movement.

”The staff got involved a few years ago and it was successful. Customers appreciate it too and have responded very well. I think having younger staff has made me more conscious about the environment,” he said.

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

GLOBAL WARMING A PROVEN SCAM SAYS SCIENTIST

Editor — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:00:06 +0000

The following is a letter to the American Physical
Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal
Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

The Telegraph reported:

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010
Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the
(literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.
It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

Resourced & published by Henry Sapiechja

ENERGY POLICIES-THE GOOD & THE BAD

Editor — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 04:45:52 +0000

THE REALITIES & FALICIES OF ENERGY POLICIES
by James Tonkowich

What will happen to jobs, living standards and families under restrictive energy policies?

Pennsylvania is lucky. Even amid this prolonged recession and depressingly high unemployment (9.5% in PA), families and businesses in the Keystone State are still paying just 9.4 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity.

That’s due in large part to the fact that Pennsylvania gets 53% of its electricity from coal. A lot of people vilify that black rock. But just think how much easier it is to cool our homes and cook our food at this price – or operate a factory, farm, office, store, hospital, school, church … or government agency.

Of course, 9.4 cents per kilowatt hour might seem like a lot to pay, compared to Indiana (where people pay only 7.1 cents), Kentucky (where electricity costs just 6.3 cents), or West Virginia (where it’s a rock-bottom 5.6 cents a kWh).

But just think how much harder all that would be if we lived in California, which generates just 1% of its electricity with coal, and people pay 13 cents per kWh; in Rhode Island, which gets no electricity from coal, and they shell out 16 cents a kWh; or just across the Delaware River in New Jersey, where families and businesses have to cough up 14.9 cents per kWh, largely because the state uses coal to produce just 15% of its job-creating electricity.

California already has its own cap-tax-and-trade global warming law, renewable energy mandates that get tougher and costlier every year, and programs that spend billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing major wind and solar energy initiatives. The once-Golden State also has the second highest unemployment rate in America (12.4%), a budget deficit of almost $20 billion, and some $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities for government workers! It ranks 49th out of 50 among states for “business friendliness.”

Its burdensome rules are justified by assertions that they prevent climate change caused by rising CO2 levels. I’m no scientist, but thousands of scientists disagree. Last year’s leaked emails by top US and British alarmist researchers show that the science of global warming has become politicized to the point that scientists who disagree, or remain unconvinced, are condemned as heretics – and alarmists are actually manipulating thermometer data and computer models to get the “climate crisis” results they want. That is dishonest and wrong.

Moreover, even California’s total contribution to the planet’s carbon dioxide levels is tiny. Pennsylvania’s is smaller still. Even if the Golden State or Keystone State totally eliminated its CO2 emissions, China’s and India’s emissions would completely replace those painful, job-killing reductions in just a few months.
According to some climate experts, even if the entire United States cut its CO2 emissions by 83% by 2050, as required by pending congressional legislation – that would, at most, reduce global temperature increases by a mere 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
Worse, that 83% reduction would send CO2 emissions all the way back to 1910 levels (1870 levels, if you consider population and technology changes since 1900). So we’re talking about truly painful cutbacks, and real pain at the pump, electric meter and bank account.
California’s actions are already forcing companies to lay off workers. A federal law would do the same on a national scale. Millions of workers would lose their jobs, as energy prices skyrocketed and we are forced to switch from fossil fuels that provide 85% of our energy, and replace them with expensive wind and solar power that requires huge subsidies, works only 30% of the time, on average, and currently provides just 1% of America’s energy.

Does anyone honestly think we can cap-tax-and-trade, regulate, litigate and otherwise penalize oil, natural gas and coal use – and not cause serious, even massive, harm to Pennsylvania’s economy? To the economies of the other 26 states that rely on coal for 47-98% of the electricity that generates their jobs, opportunities, prosperity and modern living standards?

States like Arkansas (47%), Colorado (65%), Illinois (48%), Indiana (95%), Kentucky (94%), Missouri (81%), North Dakota (91%), Ohio (85%), West Virginia (98%) and Wisconsin (66%), to name just a few. Penalizing coal use would cost millions of American jobs, and increase families’ energy and overall cost-of-living by thousands of dollars a year, according to studies by the Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, Congressional Budget Office and other analysts.

As a theologian and former pastor, I embrace God’s command to be wise stewards of His creation, to care for the Earth and our fellow human beings. We are not to waste the resources with which He has blessed us, but we are to use them for our benefit.

We are also supposed to prevent or solve environmental problems. However, we are given the wisdom to make sure the problems are real, serious and imminent, before we spend billions trying to solve them – and before we create new problems that impact the environment in new ways and hurt families still more.

Increasing energy, food and transportation costs, and sending millions into unemployment lines, in the middle of a recession, is certainly an example of creating new problems. So is installing thousands of wind turbines that cover millions of acres, require vast raw materials and kill thousands of birds, to produce electricity that is too expensive and unreliable to power modern factories, shops, homes, hospitals, schools and cities.

We need to think this through very carefully, before we enact costly policies that threaten to do much more harm than good.

The Rev. Dr. James Tonkowich, a former pastor, is a senior fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES SURVEY IN QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIA

Editor — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:03:02 +0000

As someone interested in QWESTNet, we value your input.

We are continually striving to improve QWESTNet to meet your needs. With your help we can continue to bring together sustainable technology users and retailers to provide the opportunity for like-minded participants to network and build business relationships.

The following survey will gather information regarding the success of the forums, how well they are targeted to your needs, the types of business contacts made as a result of the forums and suggestions you have for future forums.

The survey should take approximately 8 minutes to complete and will provide us with valuable information needed to continue these innovative forums.

To begin, please click on the following link START QWESTNet SURVEY

The survey is entirely anonymous.

The survey will close on Friday 26 February 2011

If you have any queries, please contact a member of the QWESTNet team at qwestnet.info@derm.qld.gov.au

Thank you for your participation.
Ana Blake
Team Leader, Sustainable Technologies & Partnerships
PH-3330 5401 Queensland Australia

Received & published by Henry Sapiecha

WORLD ENERGY SUMMIT IN ABU DHABI JAN 2011

Editor — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:38:56 +0000

Which Sessions?

Filter sessions to match your interest areas using the news My WFES tool now. Simply select technology fields, speakers and energy aspects important to you to help you select your sessions…

The World Future Energy Summit spans 10 technology fields:

Solar
Nuclear
Energy Storage
E-mobility
Smart Cards & Super Grids

Wind
Biofuels
Green Cities & Infrastructure
Carbon Capture & Storage
Hydrogen

Check out My WFES to select those important to you.

WFES 2011

In 2010 WFES uniquely brought together over 24,760 attendees

from 148 countries including world leaders, international policy

makers, industry leaders, investors, experts, academia, intellectuals

and journalists to find practical and sustainable solutions for today’s

energy security and climate change challenges.

WFES features 4 days of conferences, exhibitions and networking

sessions where real and high level decisions are made to shape

future energy solutions.

Full Programme

Forward to a Friend

Download Brochure

SAHARA SUPERGRID TO POWER THE WORLD ENERGY NEEDS

Editor — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:14:09 +0000

Sahara Solar Breeder Project aims to provide 50 percent of the world’s electricity by 2050

This is ambition with a capital A. Universities in Japan and Algeria have teamed up on a project that aims to solve the world’s energy problems. Called the Sahara Solar Breeder Project, the plan is to build manufacturing plants around the Sahara Desert and extract silica from sand to make solar panels, which will then be used to build solar power plants in the desert. The power generated by the initial plant or plants would be used to “breed” more silicon manufacturing and solar power plants, which will in turn be used to breed more again, and so on. The ultimate goal is to build enough plants to provide 50 percent of the world’s electricity by 2050, which would be delivered via a global superconducting supergrid. Read More

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha

PUBLIC TRANSPORT TRAVEL IS EASIER SAYS SPEAKER…

Editor — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:45:23 +0000

Making Travel Easy
Presenter: Eleanor Somers

Translink Transit Authority
Listen to Presentation

Eleanor provided an overview of the role of the Translink Transit Authority in ‘Making Travel Easy’. The presentation highlighted the Translink network plan and focused on the priorities as we move forward in meeting the challenges of providing public transport for a growing region in a carbon constrained economy.

Received & published by Henry Sapiecha

ELECTRIC VEHICLES & THE GOVERNMENT SPEAKER HERE…

Editor — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:30:42 +0000

What’s the Queensland Government doing on Electric Vehicles?
Presenter: Nick Weinert

Office of Climate Change
Listen to Presentation

Nick delivered information surrounding the development of the discussion paper “Electric Vehicle Roadmap”

Received & published by Henry Sapiecha

SO YOU WANT TO MAKE $75,000 PA TAX FREE FROM YOUR SOLAR HOME POWER INSTALLATION, EASY…

Editor — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 04:28:42 +0000

TAXATION RULING ON INCOME FROM SOLAR POWER GENERATION @ HOME

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RULING ON SOLAR POWER GENERATION INCOME

92788

Edited version of private ruling

Authorisation Number: 92788
This edited version of your ruling will be published on the public

the issue date of the ruling. The Information about private

rulings fact sheets have more information.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details

remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. Contact us

at the address given in the fact sheet if you have any concerns.

Ruling

Answer: No.

2. Are you entitled to either an outright deduction

or a decline in value deduction for the cost of the solar panels?

Answer: No.

3. Are you entitled to any deductions in relation to funds borrowed

in order to purchase the solar panels?

Answer: No.

This ruling applies for the following period(s):

Year ended 30 June 2008

Year ended 30 June 2009

Year ended 30 June 2010

Year ended 30 June 2011

Year ended 30 June 2012

The scheme commences on:

1 July 2007

Relevant facts and circumstances

You have a solar electric system on the roof of your principal residence.

You are not registered for GST

You intend to expand your current system.

Under the legislation, the electricity retailer will be required

to credit you 50.05 cents/kwh for the electricity exported

to the grid.

Your purpose for installing your current system was to offset

the cost of electricity now and in the future, and to contribute

to greenhouse emission reductions.

Your reasons for wishing to expand your system are to offset

100% of the electricity consumed in your home and to generate

income from a green source.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 8-1.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 6-5.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 6-10.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 40-25.

Reasons for decision

While these reasons are not part of the private ruling, we provide them to help you to understand how we reached our decision.

Income

Sections 6-5 and 6-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) provide that the assessable income of a resident taxpayer includes ordinary income and statutory income derived directly or indirectly from all sources during the income year. Generally, if an amount received is not considered ordinary income or statutory income, it is not included in assessable income.
Ordinary income has generally been held to include three categories, namely, income from rendering personal service, income from property and income from carrying on a business.
Amounts that are not ordinary income, but are specifically included in assessable income by a provision of the taxation legislation, are called statutory income and are also included in assessable income.
There are no specific legislative provisions relating to payments or credits received for the supply of electricity. Therefore the payments or credits are not considered to be statutory income.

Consequently, it is only necessary to consider if the payments or credits should be included as ‘ordinary income’. They will be ordinary income if you are carrying on a business of generating electricity.

Subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1997 defines ‘business’ to include ‘any profession, trade, employment, vocation or calling, but does not include occupation as an employee’. However, this definition simply states what activities may be included in a business. It does not provide any guidance for determining whether the nature, extent, and manner of undertaking those activities amount to the carrying on of a business. For this purpose it is necessary to turn to case law.

The cases provide a number of indicators that are relevant to determining whether activities constitute the carrying on of a business. These indicators are set out below.

Significant commercial purpose or character

The ‘significant commercial purpose or character’ indicator is linked to the size and scale of activity, the repetition and regularity of activity and the profit indicators. A way of establishing that there is a significant commercial purpose or character is to compare the activities with those of a taxpayer who is carrying on a similar activity that is a business.

The intention of the taxpayer

The intention of the taxpayer in engaging in the activity is a relevant indicator. This indicator is particularly related to:

- whether there is an intention to make a profit, and

- whether the activity is better described as a hobby or the pursuit of a recreational or sporting activity.

Prospect of profit

We believe it is important that the taxpayer is able to show how the activity can make a profit. Stronger evidence of an intention to make a profit occurs when the taxpayer has conducted research into his/her proposed activity, consulted experts or received advice on the running of the activity and the profitability of it before setting up the business.

Repetition and regularity

It is often a feature of a business that similar sorts of activities are repeated on a regular basis. The repetition of activities by the same person over a period of time on a regular basis helps to determine whether there is the carrying on of a business.

Is the activity of the same kind and carried on in a manner that is characteristic of the industry?

An activity is more likely to be a business when it is carried on in a manner similar to that in which other participants in the same industry carry on their activities

In considering this indicator the following factors might be compared with the characteristics of others engaged in the same type of business:

- the amount invested in capital items

- previous experience of the taxpayer

Organisation in a businesslike manner and the use of system

Business should be conducted systematically. A business is characteristically carried on in a systematic and organised manner rather than on an ad hoc basis. An activity should generally conform with ordinary commercial principles to amount to the carrying on of a business.

Size or scale of the activity

The larger the scale of the activity the more likely it will be that the taxpayer is carrying on a business. However, this is not always the case.

Hobby or recreation

The pursuit of a hobby is not the carrying on of a business for taxation purposes. Money derived from the pursuit of a hobby is not regarded as income and therefore is not assessable. Expenses incurred in relation to the hobby activity are not allowable deductions. However, we recognise that a hobby can sometimes turn into a business.

Application to your circumstances:

One of your reasons for wishing to expand your solar panel system is to receive income. This is a factor which points towards the carrying on of a business. However, the following factors point towards the opposite conclusion:

· although large for a home system, it is designed for domestic rather than commercial use.

· your other reasons for expanding the system are to offset 100% of the electricity consumed in your home and to support the production of renewable energy.

· although you wish to receive income from the system, given its substantial capital cost, there is no prospect of profit in the short or medium term. The likelihood of profit in the long term is also questionable as it is dependant both on the length of time the panels will remain effective before requiring replacement and you not changing residences. As you intend to borrow the funds needed to expand the system, the prospect of profit is even further reduced due to the additional interest expenses that will be incurred.

· your activity will not be carried on in a manner similar to other participants in the electricity generation industry. Commercial electricity providers operate on a size and scale vastly larger than the activity that you propose.

Having regard to all of the above, it is considered that you would not be carrying on a business of generating electricity. Therefore, any payments or credits you receive from your solar panels will not be assessable income.

Deductions

The general deduction provision is section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 which allows a deduction for all losses and outgoings to the extent to which they are incurred in gaining or producing assessable income, except where the outgoings are of a capital, private or domestic nature, or relate to the earning of exempt income.

The cost of an asset used to produce assessable income is not deductible outright under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997 as the expenditure is capital in nature. However, a decline in value deduction claimed over the effective life of the asset is available under section 40-25 of the ITAA 1997.

No deductions are available for any of your expenditure in relation to your solar electric system (including expenditure relating to funds borrowed to purchase the system such as interest) as the payments or credits you receive in relation to the system are not assessable income.

DISCLAIMER

You cannot rely on the rulings in the Register of private binding rulings in your tax affairs. You can only rely on a private ruling that we have given to you (or to someone acting on your behalf). For more information about relying on rulings refer to the relevant private rulings fact sheet(s).

The Register of private binding rulings is a public record of private rulings issued by the Tax Office. The Register is an historical record of rulings, and we do not update it to reflect changes in the law or our policies.

The rulings in the Register have been edited and may not contain all the factual details relevant to each decision. Do not use the Register to predict Tax Office policy or decisions.

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed to the Manager, Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Intellectual Property Branch, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601, or by email to commonwealthcopyright@dcita.gov.au

Sourced & published by Henry Sapiecha