EVs and Road Taxes

The Federal Government currently funds road construction and maintenance by imposing an excise tax on vehicle fuels. Whilst this regime is problematic in some regards, up till now it has worked reasonably well on the basis that the amount of fuel used roughly proportional to the number of road miles travelled.

However, with the future pointing to petroleum powered vehicles being supplanted by Electric Drive Vehicles (EVs), this method of raising road funding comes into question - with EV owners paying no excise - and the government is scrambling to develop new methods of taxing EVs to compensate.

This is going to prove an extremely difficult exercise because:

• The tax couldn't be applied to the vehicles themselves because some EVs might be travelling extensively on the roads every day, whilst others are only used for short trips or are garaged for lengthy periods - ie the tax would not be proportional to road usage.
• The tax couldn't be applied to the amount of electricity used because it would be impossible to determine whether electricity consumed had been for domestic or commercial use, or for charging vehicles. To address this the government might legislate special vehicle charging plugs that monitored power usage, but that would create a whole new industry in illegal charging facilities and home-grown special charging stations which in turn would require government inspectors to root out those cheating the system.

The obvious answer would be to introduce a Roads Maintenance levy in the Federal Taxation system (similar to the Medicare levy). Whilst some might argue they use public transport and don't drive a car, they  nevertheless consume products that transport companies have to deliver by road and are therefore beneficiaries of the transport network. 

People also all have to pay via taxation for some things they might never use, but are required by the rest of society - the electricity grid despite some people having solar and being off-grid, Universities for people who will never require tertiary education, NDIS for people who don't need daily assistance - there are many things we pay for that we as individuals don't need but are essential for the successful functioning of a democratic society.

 Who discovered Australia?

Aborigines have been living in Australia for thousands of years, so how could anyone claim it was discovered by Captain Cook when there was a whole race of people who already knew it was there?

What are we to make of these claims?

The problem lies in the fact that people are viewing the situation from the perspective of prior knowledge. They are in effect saying "we saw it first, therefore we discovered it". An example of this would be as follows:

'I'm late for work. After I rush out of the house, my wife notices that I left my lunch behind. Later that day I discover I've left my lunch at home.' - Surely no-one would object to my using the word discover in this sentence - even though my wife made the discovery first.

Statements of this nature shouldn't be viewed from the prior knowledge viewpoint, but should be considered against the background of context.

The aboriginal community are quite right to claim that Cook didn't discover Australia because that is in line with their thinking. But by the same token, when viewed from the standpoint of British (or colonial) history, it is also quite right for historians to claim that Cook did discover Australia, because no-one in Britain at the time knew of its existence, and his claim to finding it would have been, by any definition of the word, a discovery as far as the British were concerned.

The argument really boils down to a semantic dilemma which is readily solved by considering the context in which the statement is made.

 

The Lunar Space Elevator

1. 

The idea of the Space Elevator was first mooted by Russian Yuri Artsutanov in 1960 and his successors in scientific circles have come up with various proposals as to how this concept might be turned into a reality.

Basically, the concept of a space elevator involves firstly launching a satellite into a geostationary (or geosynchronous) orbit above the earth. In this location the satellite would rotate around the earth at the same angular velocity as the earth's daily rotation and would therefore appear to be stationary above a fixed point on the planet. Once established in orbit, a cable could then be lowered from the satellite and fixed to an anchor point on the earth's surface. This would enable a specially designed vehicle to climb up and down the cable, transporting supplies and materials to and from the satellite, thus obviating the need for rockets to service the satellite crew's needs or to transport astronauts between earth and satellite. 

A system as described above would face insurmountable problems including the following:

·  The geostationary orbit is located approximately 35,800 km above the earth’s surface, and a cable of this length would be required to tether the satellite to the planet. The cable adjacent to the satellite would have to support the total weight of cable below which would result in a strain on this part of cable that no known materials could withstand.

·  The cable climbing vehicle would need to be powered on its ascent to the satellite. Storage of the required fuel aboard the vehicle would add mass  and thus increase strain well past breaking point of the cable, whereas using solar power might be an option but would take years to travel the distance.

·  The cable would be exposed to adverse weather events, high velocity stratospheric jet streams, lightning strikes, cyclones and meteorite impact.

The Lunar Space Station; A new use for an old concept

In this article I have outlined a program that would step by step create a Lunar Space Station (LSS) tied to the Lunar surface by (and serviced by) a Space Elevator. Although this proposal may incorporate some seemingly staggeringly large values, everything proposed is technically possible and in accordance with what science  and technology have to offer us today in 2024.

 First - location of the LSS.

The diagram above shows the five Lagrange points associated with the Earth/Lunar system. We will be looking at the L1 point, where the gravitational pull of the Earth is counteracted by the pull of the Moon, creating a zero gravity effect at this location.

Step 1. Establish a Lunar Space Station (LSS)  at L1. Although this is nominally a zero gravity point (ZGP), due to eccentricities in the Earth and Moon's orbits the actual location of the ZGP is unstable and a computerised relocating system (incorporating fuelled thrusters) would be required to keep the LSS in orbit until the Space Elevator comes into effect.

To be continued

 Tearing down statues

In 2001 the world looked on in horror as the Taliban in Afghanistan blew up and destroyed the famous ancient statues of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. And yet in Australia we still have people calling for the destruction or removal of historical statues. Although the values, morality and actions of certain iconic historical figures may be repugnant by today's standards being completely out of step with the current zeitgeist, there is a better way to deal with statues of these figures than to deface or tear them down.

We can't go through the pages of history books redacting the names of people we don't like - history reports on the good, the bad and the ugly, and having a sound knowledge of all the contributors to the historical tapestry - good and bad -  informs us of the rights and wrongs of the past, thus giving us a sound foundation on which to build a better future.

What then should we do about statues that fly in the face of public opinion?

My take on this is simple - Research the history of the subject iconic figure, have a public enquiry, formulate a brief summary of the individual's contribution to society (good and bad) and attach a plaque to the offending statue that tells the truth.

Nuclear Energy

The following letter was sent to Chris Bowen, Federal Minister for Energy on 11 March 2024. I believe it speaks for itself in highlighting a disturbing aspect of nuclear energy that to this date has not been fully recognised and explored.

The Honourable Chris Bowen

 Dear Sir,

 I note the Federal Opposition has adopted a pro-nuclear stance in its agenda and wish to offer your ministry a powerful argument against the adoption of nuclear power generation in this (or any other) country.

 There appears to exist a blind spot in so far that arguments about global temperature rise are seemingly centred around reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to the exclusion of all other sources that also give rise to warming.

 There is in fact a significant contributor to the problem that to this date has apparently been completely overlooked.

 Nuclear power generation.

 Please consider:

Whereas renewables such as solar, wind, & hydro etc, merely convert energy from one form to another, thereby having nett zero effect on global warming, nuclear power, unfortunately, does not possess this benign quality.

 The radioactive elements used in nuclear generation have in themselves no inherent store of thermal content, but in the reaction process they produce vast quantities of heat which, rather than alleviating global warming, actually contribute to the problem.

 The amount of additional heat nuclear generators currently pump into the biosphere can be readily obtained from reliable sources but can be summarised as follows:

• Global nuclear capacity presently stands at around 390 gigawatts (with several countries committed to increasing their capacity in the future).
• Nuclear power station efficiency is on average around 35%.
• The power currently generated by nuclear is therefore in the order of 1,200 gigawatts.

·         This results in nuclear power generating 3.7 x 10¹⁸ joules per annum, or the equivalent of enough energy to provide one billion average sized homes with power, all of which ends up being added to the global warming problem. 

 I trust this argument may be of assistance to your government in combatting a populist idea which, if adopted, would contribute to a problem that threatens us all.

 Yours faithfully

 Brian Farber

Member, Institution of Engineers Australia.

 

 

 Voice referendum

One of the main arguments for the No campaign in the referendum on 14 October 2023 to create a Voice for first Australians was that a Yes vote would enshrine a right (or privilege) in the Constitution for a section of the Australian community that would give them an unfair advantage over the rest of the population.

Any reasonable person would have to concede that Aborigines as a sector of society have, to put it mildly, been treated pretty unfairly since the arrival of the First Fleet, and giving them an extra voice in deciding their own affairs would help to redress this long-standing injustice.

However, considering that the very purpose of the Voice was to improve all of the vital statistics associated with the Aboriginal community (eg life expectancy, health, etc) that fell below the general standard of the rest of the population, there had to come a time in the future when parity would be achieved, and Aborigines would then look forward to the same expectations that we all share.

It would then be at this future point in time - Aborigines having achieved full equality with the rest of the population - that the case for having a discriminatory clause enshrined in the Constitution would lose its justification. Therefore, in all fairness, any future proposed amendment to the Constitution should include a 'Sunset Clause' that still maintains recognition of Aborigines as Australia's first peoples, whilst cancelling the Voice which would have become redundant now that this state of equality had finally been achieved.

In view of the snail's pace at which societal improvements progress in this country, I would suggest that 'Sunset' should be scheduled to happen in around 40 years time - approximately the extent of 2 generations, and about the same length of time that the Jews had to wander around in the desert before they were allowed to enter the promised land.

 Transgender sports

Transgender athletes have been in the news lately with some authorities arguing that, generally because of their stronger build, males who have undergone procedures leading to female status should not be allowed to participate in female sports events. 

To allow their participation would give them an unfair advantage over other women, whilst to exclude them from participation would be unfair to those athletes seeking inclusion.

There is a way around this that would be fair to both sides. 

Take the 100 metres event in the Olympic Games for example. If a trans woman was included and won the event, she would gain a special Gold Trans medal to acknowledge her achievement, whilst the runner up would be awarded the usual Gold medal acknowledging her place in the event. If the trans woman came second in the event she would gain a special Silver Trans medal whilst the runner coming third would win the usual Silver medal for second place getters....and so on for the bronze medals.

In this way we can acknowledge the excellence in performance of all competitors irrespective of their genetic makeup in a manner which, I feel, would be acceptable to all participants and their supporters, without ruffling too many feathers.

 

Just a footnote about the AFL (Australian Football League):

The women's AFL league has been named the AFLW, whilst the men's teams are still known as the AFL. This gives the impression that the women's teams are some sort of appendage to the AFL and true gender equality demands that this should be corrected by calling the men's teams the AFLM.

 

 Governor General

With the demise of Queen Elizabeth 2, it is inevitable that the push to proclaim Australia as a Republic will re-emerge sometime in the not too distant future, and so too will emerge the problematic process of selecting the Governor General.

The Governing party of the day and indeed, the Opposition as well, would prefer the GG be selected by the Parliament from a field of eminent citizens acceptable to the major parties to maintain the status and integrity of the position. 

However, Australians, not being particularly well disposed toward politicians, would prefer a non-political appointment, and would demand the post be filled by popular plebiscite. Unfortunately the result of such a selection process would counterintuitively lead to just the opposite of what the Australian people would have expected, because each of the political parties would pour finance, advertising and resources into the selection of the candidate whose background best matched their philosophical agenda, and the country would end up with a head of state biased toward one side or other of the political spectrum, just as is the American President beholden to the agenda of the party which supports his candidature.

I suggest that to satisfy both the People and the Politicians, the Governing and Opposition parties draw up a list of candidates acceptable to both sides of Government and follow up with a plebiscite allowing the People to vote for the person on that list whom they find most suited for the position.

Button batteries

Approximately 200 children per year are potentially exposed to button battery injury in Australia, with at least a dozen per year experiencing severe injury. Since 2013, there have been three deaths from oesophageal button battery injury. 
I suggest a possible solution to this problem would be introduction of legislation requiring button batteries to be coated with an unpleasant (bitter?) substance to discourage children from putting them into their mouths.