Privatisation of electricity in Vic.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Just to clarify, for those who may not be aware, Loy Yang consists of two separate generating entities,

In a previous life I lived in Sth Gippsland, but even back then I wondered how many Bogan types were thinking..........

"Hey, with a name like Loy Yang, of course its owned by the Chinese"

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

B station is a joint venture between GDF SUEZ Australian Energy and Mitsui and Co Ltd. All info available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loy_Yang_Power_Station.
Craig H

The first problem I noticed there is the mention of GDF Suez (French Company also known as Degremont). Worldwide they have milked and stuffed up more alliances than any other company. Hungarian and Spanish governemnts in court with them plus numerous US towns. They ran down the maintenance and minimised staff levels to the point plants were falling over.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

In a previous life I lived in Sth Gippsland, but even back then I wondered how many Bogan types were thinking..........

"Hey, with a name like Loy Yang, of course its owned by the Chinese"

So you wouldn't be surprised to know that Loy Yang is actually a local aboriginal term for the area which roughly translates into "Big eel"? Apparently there used to be quite a number of large conga eels that frequented the Traralgon creek back in the day of early european settlement.

Craig H

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by bungarra

The first problem I noticed there is the mention of GDF Suez (French Company also known as Degremont). Worldwide they have milked and stuffed up more alliances than any other company. Hungarian and Spanish governemnts in court with them plus numerous US towns. They ran down the maintenance and minimised staff levels to the point plants were falling over.

I'll take your word for it. All I know is that they also own and operate Hazelwood which is certainly run down these days, but that is to be expected given it's age.

However, LYB is definitely not run down, in fact it is probably quite the opposite. Given that it is our sister station, and they were built to similar standards (albeit that the government at the time did not have the same level of money to invest in the construction of LYB, and therefore a number of money saving design changes were incorporated that were not in LYA), we do share some information with them from time to time on work. I think you'll find that their plant has not been maintained to a higher standard than LYA has over the years.

Craig H

[69XWGT]

This should be a warning to all Queenslanders to what this ratbag government want to do

[cheap]

Originally Posted by 69XWGT

This should be a warning to all Queenslanders to what this ratbag government want to do

So if selling assets is bad. Then how should they repaid the massive debt?

No doubt taxing everyone in Queensland even more would be good with you?

Or how about raising royalties to +50% , that will work a treat?

Or how about making even more public servants redundant?

Sadly there isn't many options available?

Oh and remind me again how Queensland got into this financial mess?

[karj]

Originally Posted by cheap

So if selling assets is bad. Then how should they repaid the massive debt?

No doubt taxing everyone in Queensland even more would be good with you?

Or how about raising royalties to +50% , that will work a treat?

Or how about making even more public servants redundant?

Sadly there isn't many options available?

Oh and remind me again how Queensland got into this financial mess?

What is it with you and blaming everything on Labor?

Governments across Australia have had to deal with significant falls in revenue and a slowdown of economic growth since the GFC. With Queensland, add in a couple of rather nasty natural disasters and a drought and it's pretty obvious why they are in the financial crapper.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by karj

What is it with you and blaming everything on Labor?

Governments across Australia have had to deal with significant falls in revenue and a slowdown of economic growth since the GFC. With Queensland, add in a couple of rather nasty natural disasters and a drought and it's pretty obvious why they are in the financial crapper.

Significant falls in revenue?

Queensland Treasury figures http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/previous-budgets

2001 Revenue $18.18 billion
2002 Revenue $19.237 billion
2003 Revenue $20.181 billion
2004 Revenue $21.4 billion
2005 Revenue $24 billion
2006 Revenue $26.604 billion
2007 Revenue $29.070 billion
2008 Revenue $32.551 billion
2009 Revenue $36,582 billion
2010 Revenue $37,192 billion
2011 Revenue $40,606 billion
2012 Revenue $43,007 billion
2013 Revenue $46,507 billion

Perhaps you meant The Commonwealth Government, as there is a misconception of a fall in revenue to the Fed's, there hasn't been.

As for the drought, you are partially correct, the drought has had an adverse effect but perhaps not in the way you meant. To drought proof SEQ, the government built the Tugun desalination plant, how much did this cost and how many litres of water were produced. And then there is the Traveston dam folly, how much did that cost?

Yep we are in the crapper but it isn't because of falling revenues, that would leave one other possibility - the governments are spending more than they're receiving.

[ebxr8240]

Sold other things off so revenue doesn't come back to Queensland ?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cheap

Significant falls in revenue?

Queensland Treasury figures http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/previous-budgets

2001 Revenue $18.18 billion
2002 Revenue $19.237 billion
2003 Revenue $20.181 billion
2004 Revenue $21.4 billion
2005 Revenue $24 billion
2006 Revenue $26.604 billion
2007 Revenue $29.070 billion
2008 Revenue $32.551 billion
2009 Revenue $36,582 billion
2010 Revenue $37,192 billion
2011 Revenue $40,606 billion
2012 Revenue $43,007 billion
2013 Revenue $46,507 billion

Perhaps you meant The Commonwealth Government, as there is a misconception of a fall in revenue to the Fed's, there hasn't been.

As for the drought, you are partially correct, the drought has had an adverse effect but perhaps not in the way you meant. To drought proof SEQ, the government built the Tugun desalination plant, how much did this cost and how many litres of water were produced. And then there is the Traveston dam folly, how much did that cost?

Yep we are in the crapper but it isn't because of falling revenues, that would leave one other possibility - the governments are spending more than they're receiving.

that sort of money wont buy many lollies.

besides real money come from federal GST returns that have been dwindling for every state.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by burnz

that sort of money wont buy many lollies.

besides real money come from federal GST returns that have been dwindling for every state.

I do not have the inclination to go through the federal budget numbers, but Federal revenues have gone up year upon year. It is just that the previous mob spent more than they earnt, handing out OUR money for all sorts of stuff with virtually nothing to show for it. That must mean my opinion is at odds with the word of the former worlds greatest treasurer

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by cheap

So if selling assets is bad. Then how should they repaid the massive debt?

No doubt taxing everyone in Queensland even more would be good with you?

Or how about raising royalties to +50% , that will work a treat?

Or how about making even more public servants redundant?

Sadly there isn't many options available?

Oh and remind me again how Queensland got into this financial mess?

Any other way besides selling off assets, it should be done only as a last resort but instead it's done by one party above all others at the countrys expense to merely generate a false surplus to deceive the public into votes for said party.

[xtremerus]

Wow.
7.30 in the morning, and come up with that, Illavitar.
Hate to hear you on a bad morning.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by cheap

Significant falls in revenue?

Queensland Treasury figures http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/previous-budgets

2001 Revenue $18.18 billion
2002 Revenue $19.237 billion
2003 Revenue $20.181 billion
2004 Revenue $21.4 billion
2005 Revenue $24 billion
2006 Revenue $26.604 billion
2007 Revenue $29.070 billion
2008 Revenue $32.551 billion
2009 Revenue $36,582 billion
2010 Revenue $37,192 billion
2011 Revenue $40,606 billion
2012 Revenue $43,007 billion
2013 Revenue $46,507 billion

Perhaps you meant The Commonwealth Government, as there is a misconception of a fall in revenue to the Fed's, there hasn't been.

As for the drought, you are partially correct, the drought has had an adverse effect but perhaps not in the way you meant. To drought proof SEQ, the government built the Tugun desalination plant, how much did this cost and how many litres of water were produced. And then there is the Traveston dam folly, how much did that cost?

Yep we are in the crapper but it isn't because of falling revenues, that would leave one other possibility - the governments are spending more than they're receiving.

Why have you posted misinformation ?

2008-2009 onwards revenue did not rise by over a million percent as you suggest

[cheap]

Originally Posted by zilo

Why have you posted misinformation ?

2008-2009 onwards revenue did not rise by over a million percent as you suggest

Oh gosh you spotted a key stroke error - amazing truly amazing

[zilo]

Originally Posted by cheap

Oh gosh you spotted a key stroke error - amazing truly amazing

You mean multiple errors?

Actually still looking for info on where you claim RET's have significantly affected the price of electricity.

Could you kindly post up the source of your findings?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by zilo

You mean multiple errors?

Actually still looking for info on where you claim RET's have significantly affected the price of electricity.

Could you kindly post up the source of your findings?

So you're still having problems using a computer?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cheap

I do not have the inclination to go through the federal budget numbers, but Federal revenues have gone up year upon year. It is just that the previous mob spent more than they earnt, handing out OUR money for all sorts of stuff with virtually nothing to show for it. That must mean my opinion is at odds with the word of the former worlds greatest treasurer

where's the relevance in that post?

GST revenue "has" been reduced to the state's!

[cheap]

Originally Posted by burnz

where's the relevance in that post?

GST revenue "has" been reduced to the state's!

FY 2013-2014, 4 states/territories have received more $'s from the commonwealth grants commission (aka GST), whilst 4 have received less $'s. What is your point?

[zilo]

Originally Posted by cheap

So you're still having problems using a computer?

No need for a personal attack, others have also asked you the same question in this thread.

Now where's your proof that RET's have pushed up the price of electricity?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by zilo

No need for a personal attack, others have also asked you the same question in this thread.

Now where's your proof that RET's have pushed up the price of electricity?

I can assure you there is no personal attack, why would you think that?

And can you confirm that you can't find a single entry having looked the length and breath of the internet - would that be truthful and correct?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

I can assure you there is no personal attack, why would you think that?

And can you confirm that you can't find a single entry having looked the length and breath of the internet - would that be truthful and correct?

Cheap, it is very rare in a debate that one side would ask the other to research their argument for them.
And it's rare becuse it has never worked. Making statements needs to be supported with evidence, especially if you are trying to sway an opinion.
You lately have a penchant for this tactic and it hasnt worked and I doubt anyone on AFF is silly enough to prove your point for you against their own opinion.
Id suggest if you want to play you have to put in the effort.
If the 'other side' wont do their research it benefits your ability to argue but it shouldnt mean you are also exempt, and I dont see them not offering reference.
You claim to be motivated by balance, therefore supporting an opinion or fact with evidence is the only way you can do this. Demanding someone research your point in the hope they will take what you say at face value rather then look for themselves just shouldnt work....if it does I cant imagine what those who fall for it must be like when the nigerian e-mails come through.

Justin

[BHDOGS]

Here we go i did some googling for everybody i found these points interesting especially the first one.


Key points: The renewable energy target

The Howard government introduced the RET in 2001 to encourage growth in renewable energy.
The Renewable Energy Target aims for 20 per cent of power to be drawn from renewables - like wind and solar - by 2020.
The cost of investment in renewable energy is much higher than investment in traditional energy sources like coal and gas.
It is estimated that the cost of the RET to consumers makes up between 1 and 5 per cent of power bills.
The RET can lower wholesale electricity prices, because creating renewable energy once the infrastructure is in place is relatively cheap.
That benefit does not necessarily extend to the consumer.

[290v]

And the South Australians don't forget to thank John Olson for privatizing our electricity, water, Highways department & Lotteries commission
(State Liberals party)

[cheap]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Here we go i did some googling for everybody i found these points interesting especially the first one.


Key points: The renewable energy target

The Howard government introduced the RET in 2001 to encourage growth in renewable energy. Yes - but at 5%
The Renewable Energy Target aims for 20 per cent of power to be drawn from renewables - like wind and solar - by 2020. The 5% became 20% because of the ALP/Green alliance
The cost of investment in renewable energy is much higher than investment in traditional energy sources like coal and gas. Yes Yes Yes
It is estimated that the cost of the RET to consumers makes up between 1 and 5 per cent of power bills. No
The RET can lower wholesale electricity prices, because creating renewable energy once the infrastructure is in place is relatively cheap. Not Likely, pigs will fly sooner
That benefit does not necessarily extend to the consumer. Yes

Yes and no - see above

In Queensland our electricity bills contain an estimate of what the RET/CO2 tax have added. In our case it is in the order of 20%.

"What future for RET?" the link is below

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...EknQo57EnjmQ4g

Back to the OP, can someone answer if people with home roof top solar panels adding electricity back into the grid, would they be considered as "private" producers of electricity?

[BHDOGS]

its probably prudent to also point out the electricity retailers themselves are hoarding the lowering of wholesale prices by not passing on the lower rates to customers. This is something the government could assist in but wont.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

In Queensland our...

Ah ha!

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Ah ha!

JP

How do the people from your area, have viability of the cost impost that RET/CO2 has bought to them?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

How do the people from your area, have viability of the cost impost that RET/CO2 has bought to them?

Sorry fella, dont understand your question completely but will take a stab in the dark!

as you know i'm a cafe latte sipping urban progressive socialist hippie architect scum. I live in Central Adelaide with a growing number of like minded people. I think we just re-elected a liberal rep in our recent elections, so perhaps the city dweller is not just like me? I voted green! which says something about the following.
Nobody I know struggles with the cost implication of a government policy which aims to reduce our use of electricity and or subsidise our movement to renewables in the form of solar, which 30% of our states power comes from. Though before we put solar on we used $138 of electricity in the quarter, 2 person home with all the mod cons, we even have an electric fridge. Now I export 3 times as much power as we use after our modest solar installation.
Now I believe there are people who have significantly higher electricity bills. Any social policy that makes power cost to the consumer match the real cost to the environment is OK with me. What it may do is force people to use less of it which in turn reduces their emissions which in turn slows down the pumping of CO2 into our atmosphere which in turn increases my fellow citizens viability on this planet.
As you know I believe in man impacted climate change, that our additional CO2 emissions have tipped the balance. Reducing this is amongst the many other benefits I believe a RET have socially, environmentally and even economically.
To date there has been an $8 Billion investment in solar by mums and dads in over 1 million homes in Australia employing 14-18000 people as an industry.
SA has one of the highest uptakes of solar due to a government with foresight, as mentioned 30% of our power comes from solar, the dumping of the RET which may have a 6% 'impost' on power prices will effectively shut a large and growing industry, will affect the millions of already financially committed to or with solar and an ever growing employment base.
As with other tech power generators and transmission companies we all subsidise their operations, which is no different to everyone subsidising solar, healthcare, police or government.

I ask in return, how can your fellow citizens not support the RET+ and their own viability on this planet!

JP

[zilo]

Originally Posted by cheap

"What future for RET?" the link is below

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CCo QFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Facci.asn.au%2Fgetattachm ent%2F0ef05e2b-1d64-42e0-82cf-f411c074c18c%2FWhat-Future-for-the-RET-.aspx&ei=djwkU7CuL8-2lQXKrIHADw&usg=AFQjCNHhW4g5i1W-_M-UXeuiabxvsT2Bkg&
sig2=G9EdnMPHEknQo57EnjmQ4g

?

So...you present a link from Burchell Wilson?
　

An employee of a coal fuelled power station owned by a Singapore govt based multinational who is intent on dismantling anything related to mitigation of carbon in the atmosphere ?

Just fallen off my chair with laughter.