white_goodman
BOC
- Joined
- 13 December 2007
- Posts
- 1,635
- Reactions
- 0
am i saving the world yet?
Labor's carbon tax lie
- Thread starter drsmith
- Start date
am i saving the world yet?
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,471
- Reactions
- 4,467
Surprised some one didn't post this....well not really
C-Day plus one still adds up
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/14106252/c-day-plus-one-still-adds-up/
C-Day plus one still adds up
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/14106252/c-day-plus-one-still-adds-up/
white_goodman
BOC
- Joined
- 13 December 2007
- Posts
- 1,635
- Reactions
- 0
ESTIMATES,
i can say that the carbon price ion my estimation will reduce power prices, jsut because I estimate a seemingly favourable outcome doesnt mean it reflects reality
Watch the video above and what has already happened to wholesale prices..
Some time ago I did an exercise on the increase of the GST to 12.5% which would have given the Government an extra income of $11.5 billion which at the time was around the mark estimated the Carbon dioxide tax would have been as comparable income for the government coffers.
It cannot be disputed that had an increase in the GST taken place in lieu of the Carbon tax, one would have known exactly how much extra the cost of goods would have been.
The Carbon dioxide tax is a hidden tax which will vary from one business to the other and undoubtedly exploited by unscroupulous busness. One will not know if any increases applied will be legitament or not. Furthermore, the carbon tax will increase each year. I pity some organisations who are on fixed or variable prices for the mineral processing such as Qld. Nickel who are reliable on world market prices which are extremely low ATM.
It is a "CON AND A FRUAD".
It cannot be disputed that had an increase in the GST taken place in lieu of the Carbon tax, one would have known exactly how much extra the cost of goods would have been.
The Carbon dioxide tax is a hidden tax which will vary from one business to the other and undoubtedly exploited by unscroupulous busness. One will not know if any increases applied will be legitament or not. Furthermore, the carbon tax will increase each year. I pity some organisations who are on fixed or variable prices for the mineral processing such as Qld. Nickel who are reliable on world market prices which are extremely low ATM.
It is a "CON AND A FRUAD".
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
I suppose it depends how you measure the impact. Since the announcement of the carbon tax all the coal mines in W.A have been sold to overseas.
As generation moves from coal fired base load to gas and renewables the cost difference, which is considerable, will even shock you IFocus. (hope you installed solar panels when the feed in tarrif was 47c)
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
Which government was it that artifically froze electricity prices in WA ?
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
If I remember correctly, the Libs forced that on Labor, to agree to suport some legislation. It may have been the breaking up of Western Power as Labor said it would save money. What a joke.
- Joined
- 7 October 2011
- Posts
- 471
- Reactions
- 80
I know I am quoting a post made almost 2 weeks ago, but I would be very interested if Smurf1976 could keep us updated with the spot price of electricity from (a) today, and (b) early next week. The reason I ask is that a second unit was brought back to life at Yallourn power sation this week, and another is apparently also coming online this weekend. With a significant increase in base load power available to the grid, it should result in lower prices. Carbon tax or not, nothing will ever have a greater bearing on prices than the law of supply and demand!
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
I think that is a bit misleading, the cost of fuel is by far the greatest impost on the cost of electricity.
By adding a tax to cheap fuel, thereby inflating its cost has to have a knock on increase to the cost of generation.
Supply and demand will only have a bearing on extorting purchasers to pay the higher inflated price.
- Joined
- 7 October 2011
- Posts
- 471
- Reactions
- 80
Let's just wait for the answer, shall we?
Simplistically, if an extra 900 MW or so (including the ramping up of the one unit that was kept operating, from half to full capacity) is shoved into the grid, something has to give!
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
You don't have to wait for the answer!
If you are forced to use a fuel that results in your generating costs increasing i.e taking into consideration the thermal efficiency of your generating plant.
Your generating costs go up.
Obviously your thermodynamic background is limited.
The cost of thermal coal generation at 30% efficiency is considerably cheaper than combined cycle gas generation at 54% efficiency. Therefore the carbon tax has been put on the coal to make it more expensive.
How you can say this is going to in some way make electricity cheaper, is a very interesting take on it, if not a bit naive.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,886
There has been some settling down over the almost two weeks since the carbon tax was introduced. I say that noting that on the first working day (Monday) of the tax, the overall operation of the electricity system was somewhat comparable to that which occurs during either a very high demand period (eg a heatwave) or that associated with a major plant failure. The load wasn't extreme, but the overall goings on and associated prices were in that category that's for sure. Average price (Vic) for the day was $279.83, slightly more than 10 times the average for last financial year.
Since that time, things have settled down greatly however and various trends have become clear. Looking at it on a plant / company specific basis (and releasing only information that is already in the public domain by vaious means). Listed in random order.
1. Northern Power Station (540MW coal-fired in SA at Port Augusta) has indeed been shut on a seasonal basis as previously announced by the owners. The plant will now operate only for the warmer 6 months of the year or thereabouts. They didn't cease operations immediately, but it is shut now.
2. Playford power station (240MW coal-fired in SA) was operating seasonally prior to the tax coming in and the owners have stated that the plant will be closed completely. I assume they will do just that. A notable point in both of these is that remaining cheaply extractable coal at Leigh Creek is limited (there's plenty more at a far higher cost however), and that Playford is a far less efficient power station than Northern.
3. A certain large and reasonably well known coal-fired power station in eastern Australia is pricing much of its output substantially higher than actual production costs in order to maintain higher prices at off-peak times. There is nothing "wrong" with them doing that, but it is a notable response from an operator somewhat known for "interesting" pricing strategies (and for objecting to competition from certain other generating companies). One possible explanation is that the company believes the tax will be short lived and that there is thus no point using the fixed volume of cheap coal they have available now at minimal profit, when they could use it at a much higher profit in future if the tax were removed.
4. Also of note is that at least one gas-fired generation company appears to have adopted the same strategy. They have a fixed volume of gas under contract, and are choosing not to use it any more quickly than they would have without a carbon tax. The general expectation of a future surge in natural gas prices quite likely contributes to this thinking.
5. Hydro Tasmania (30 hydro-electric power stations in Tas plus involvement in wind power and also owns a mothballed oil/gas plant) has made what amounts to a bet on the outcome of the next election, that being for a Coalition win and repeal of the carbon tax. Hydro has ramped up output, knowing that this over production is unsustainable and would eventually empty the lakes, on the assumption that carbon-free electricity is worth more now than it will be after the next election. In a somewhat carefully worded form, this was literally front page news in a Tas newspaper recently.
6. Other hydro-electric companies are essentially using the same strategy as Hydro Tas (HT), albeit on a smaller scale given that they have less storage capacity relative to generating capacity. That is, HT runs a base and intermediate load system and can only run down the storages relatively slowly whereas the other companies are geared more toward peaking generation and hold far less water relative to the rate at which it could be used. That said, they too are letting more out than they normally would.
7. Mowell (190MW, coal-fired, Vic, primarily a briquette factory with an associated power station) has drastically reduced electricity output and rumor has it that the plant will close altogether after the next election (assuming a Labor win and retention of the carbon tax).
8. Munmorah Power station (600MW, coal-fired, NSW) has formally announced closure although this came as no surprise given that the plant hasn't been fully operational (it was originally 1400MW) since about 1989 (give or take a year or two either way as I can't remember the exact date) and even the two units it does have in working condition haven't actually been running in recent times. All that said, the actual demise of the plant has more to do with over-investment in new power stations elsewhere 30 years ago than any actual reason to close Munmorah at the time (though I'd assume it's been run down in recent times in anticipation of closure now).
Suffice to say that the NSW government once made a bet on a huge spurt of industrial growth which never eventuated, leaving the state with a massive over supply of electricity by the mid-1980's. Numerous power stations ended up being either closed completely or downsized as a result of that and it was one of the direct causes, along with general political thinking, of the demise of state-run electricity utilities in the form the had historically taken.
So overall, 1 - 7 are all essentially the same strategy. They amount to an expectation that the carbon tax will be short lived, or at least that future rates may be lower than the present rate. As such, those with carbon-free energy in storage are producing and selling it as quickly as possible whilst prices remain high, and those with limited coal resources in their own mines are leaving the coal in the ground for the time being on the assumption of paying a lower rate of tax at some future date. Or in the case of Morwell, delaying a closure decision until after the next election. It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived.
8 Would seem to be at least partly politically motivated given that the announcement came as no surprise to anyone and that the plant wasn't regularly running anyway.
So far as Yallourn is concerned, well I think that there will be a lot of people watching what they do very closely. If they actually do go back to pumping out 1480 MW around the clock then it has to go somewhere, someone else has to drop production.
They are in a somewhat unique situation really in that they are a large producer by any standards (20% of total annual generation in Vic) and are also publicly on record as being willing, indeed perhaps somewhat keen, to permanently shut down in return for compensation. They also are the only significant generator whose actions are thus far unknown given that recent problems with flooding have forced a reduction in output not associated with the carbon tax. How they play the game is thus anyone's guess at this stage, and may be influenced by factors other than strict economics. I 'd expect that there's quite a few watching very closely what's going on at Yallourn at the moment.
So far as prices are concerned, the average price in Vic since introduction of the carbon tax has been $88.20 versus $27.28 for last financial year. Averages for the other states thus far are NSW $69.97, Qld $64.60, SA $93.60, Tas $66.56. These compare with averages last year that were all about $30 +/- 10%.
Since that time, things have settled down greatly however and various trends have become clear. Looking at it on a plant / company specific basis (and releasing only information that is already in the public domain by vaious means). Listed in random order.
1. Northern Power Station (540MW coal-fired in SA at Port Augusta) has indeed been shut on a seasonal basis as previously announced by the owners. The plant will now operate only for the warmer 6 months of the year or thereabouts. They didn't cease operations immediately, but it is shut now.
2. Playford power station (240MW coal-fired in SA) was operating seasonally prior to the tax coming in and the owners have stated that the plant will be closed completely. I assume they will do just that. A notable point in both of these is that remaining cheaply extractable coal at Leigh Creek is limited (there's plenty more at a far higher cost however), and that Playford is a far less efficient power station than Northern.
3. A certain large and reasonably well known coal-fired power station in eastern Australia is pricing much of its output substantially higher than actual production costs in order to maintain higher prices at off-peak times. There is nothing "wrong" with them doing that, but it is a notable response from an operator somewhat known for "interesting" pricing strategies (and for objecting to competition from certain other generating companies). One possible explanation is that the company believes the tax will be short lived and that there is thus no point using the fixed volume of cheap coal they have available now at minimal profit, when they could use it at a much higher profit in future if the tax were removed.
4. Also of note is that at least one gas-fired generation company appears to have adopted the same strategy. They have a fixed volume of gas under contract, and are choosing not to use it any more quickly than they would have without a carbon tax. The general expectation of a future surge in natural gas prices quite likely contributes to this thinking.
5. Hydro Tasmania (30 hydro-electric power stations in Tas plus involvement in wind power and also owns a mothballed oil/gas plant) has made what amounts to a bet on the outcome of the next election, that being for a Coalition win and repeal of the carbon tax. Hydro has ramped up output, knowing that this over production is unsustainable and would eventually empty the lakes, on the assumption that carbon-free electricity is worth more now than it will be after the next election. In a somewhat carefully worded form, this was literally front page news in a Tas newspaper recently.
6. Other hydro-electric companies are essentially using the same strategy as Hydro Tas (HT), albeit on a smaller scale given that they have less storage capacity relative to generating capacity. That is, HT runs a base and intermediate load system and can only run down the storages relatively slowly whereas the other companies are geared more toward peaking generation and hold far less water relative to the rate at which it could be used. That said, they too are letting more out than they normally would.
7. Mowell (190MW, coal-fired, Vic, primarily a briquette factory with an associated power station) has drastically reduced electricity output and rumor has it that the plant will close altogether after the next election (assuming a Labor win and retention of the carbon tax).
8. Munmorah Power station (600MW, coal-fired, NSW) has formally announced closure although this came as no surprise given that the plant hasn't been fully operational (it was originally 1400MW) since about 1989 (give or take a year or two either way as I can't remember the exact date) and even the two units it does have in working condition haven't actually been running in recent times. All that said, the actual demise of the plant has more to do with over-investment in new power stations elsewhere 30 years ago than any actual reason to close Munmorah at the time (though I'd assume it's been run down in recent times in anticipation of closure now).
Suffice to say that the NSW government once made a bet on a huge spurt of industrial growth which never eventuated, leaving the state with a massive over supply of electricity by the mid-1980's. Numerous power stations ended up being either closed completely or downsized as a result of that and it was one of the direct causes, along with general political thinking, of the demise of state-run electricity utilities in the form the had historically taken.
So overall, 1 - 7 are all essentially the same strategy. They amount to an expectation that the carbon tax will be short lived, or at least that future rates may be lower than the present rate. As such, those with carbon-free energy in storage are producing and selling it as quickly as possible whilst prices remain high, and those with limited coal resources in their own mines are leaving the coal in the ground for the time being on the assumption of paying a lower rate of tax at some future date. Or in the case of Morwell, delaying a closure decision until after the next election. It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived.
8 Would seem to be at least partly politically motivated given that the announcement came as no surprise to anyone and that the plant wasn't regularly running anyway.
So far as Yallourn is concerned, well I think that there will be a lot of people watching what they do very closely. If they actually do go back to pumping out 1480 MW around the clock then it has to go somewhere, someone else has to drop production.
They are in a somewhat unique situation really in that they are a large producer by any standards (20% of total annual generation in Vic) and are also publicly on record as being willing, indeed perhaps somewhat keen, to permanently shut down in return for compensation. They also are the only significant generator whose actions are thus far unknown given that recent problems with flooding have forced a reduction in output not associated with the carbon tax. How they play the game is thus anyone's guess at this stage, and may be influenced by factors other than strict economics. I 'd expect that there's quite a few watching very closely what's going on at Yallourn at the moment.
So far as prices are concerned, the average price in Vic since introduction of the carbon tax has been $88.20 versus $27.28 for last financial year. Averages for the other states thus far are NSW $69.97, Qld $64.60, SA $93.60, Tas $66.56. These compare with averages last year that were all about $30 +/- 10%.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
Thanks for the time and effort, smurph, it is great to be given a holistic snapshot. The forum should be gratefull, they are getting a very knowledgeable insight.
In W.A two coal fired generating units have been mothballed and two new high efficiency gas turbines(HEGT's) are being commissioned.
If these prove reliable, I think the moth balled coal generators will be knocked over and further HEGT's installed.
It is still the case that this is economical vandalism, wasting a fantastic resource like gas, to make electricity. We will all be the losers when it is gone.
In W.A two coal fired generating units have been mothballed and two new high efficiency gas turbines(HEGT's) are being commissioned.
If these prove reliable, I think the moth balled coal generators will be knocked over and further HEGT's installed.
It is still the case that this is economical vandalism, wasting a fantastic resource like gas, to make electricity. We will all be the losers when it is gone.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,886
The industry has been down this track before, with a lot of oil-fired generation built in the late 1960's and 70's.It is still the case that this is economical vandalism, wasting a fantastic resource like gas, to make electricity. We will all be the losers when it is gone.
It ended up as a financial millstone of massive proportions, many utilities still trying to work out what to do about the situation well into the 1990's. For the record, SECWA was noted worldwide for its' very rapid shift from oil to coal - achieved partly by converting some units at Kwinana (including those still under construction) to burn coal, partly by converting previously coal-fired plants back to using that instead of oil, and partly by building new coal-fired capacity at Muja.
Perhaps the best example of the situation in this area of the world was in New Zealand where the oil-fired Marsden B power station was closed before it ever opened. It sat there from 1979 until it was finally dismantled in 2011. It never actually generated electricity into the NZ grid even during the various power supply crises which occurred during that period. Last I heard, it had been dismantled but was sitting on the wharf (in pieces), shipping being held up by some sort of dispute over payment. Parts are headed to India.
There are numerous such examples around the world and many of the large coal-fired plants which came online globally during the 1980's were built solely on the basis of avoiding use of the oil-fired plants, there being no other need for additional generating capacity as such. A lot of nuclear and a few hydro schemes were built for the same reasons.
We're set to repeat the same mistakes in my opinion, with the additional point that it is not at all technically easy to convert a gas-fired plant to use coal so there is no "quick fix" solution. At some point, gas won't be so cheap and then we've got an immediate crisis.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
Truer words were never spoken.
So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,464
- Reactions
- 1,463
Something that hasn't managed to get much attention in the media and on this forum is the fact that on the 26th of June the Senate passed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill...the CEFC will give-away 2 billion a year for 5 years and its legislated and supposedly ring fenced from the noalition.
So 1 vote Tony and the noalition are going to stop the carbon tax and leave the CEFC in place? 2 billion a year!
Hows that gona work?
http://www.investinaustralia.com/ne...es-clean-energy-finance-corporation-bill-12c3
http://www.cefcexpertreview.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=thecefc.htm
In 12 or 18 months time the noalition will have no choice, they will have to do an NBN like back flip due to overwhelming reality.
So 1 vote Tony and the noalition are going to stop the carbon tax and leave the CEFC in place? 2 billion a year!
Hows that gona work?
http://www.investinaustralia.com/ne...es-clean-energy-finance-corporation-bill-12c3
http://www.cefcexpertreview.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=thecefc.htm
In 12 or 18 months time the noalition will have no choice, they will have to do an NBN like back flip due to overwhelming reality.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,886
Regardless of the issue in question, I thought it was considered unacceptable to pass legislation in a manner intended to constrain the actions of a future government? It certainly goes against all principles of democracy to do so and I would make the same comments no matter what the underlying issues may happen to be.
Energy projects already under construction have been stopped by governments in the past so I see no reason why, in principle at least, it should not be possible to do so now.
To commit to any course of action, over anything, with no ability to implement changes or a reversal is the height of stupidity in my opinion. Circumstances can and do change in all areas of policy and likewise governments come and go.
Energy projects already under construction have been stopped by governments in the past so I see no reason why, in principle at least, it should not be possible to do so now.
To commit to any course of action, over anything, with no ability to implement changes or a reversal is the height of stupidity in my opinion. Circumstances can and do change in all areas of policy and likewise governments come and go.
So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,464
- Reactions
- 1,463
I suppose if the noalition are willing to pay billions in compensation then they will be able to stop it...investors cannot be expected to spend billions on clean energy and the new technology's required without some funding certainty...and that was ALWAYS what the carbon tax and CPRS was about, funding certainty to enable the required investment.
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
I would think nothing will prevent a double dissolution where the necessary laws to repeal any undemocratic laws of Gillard's. Voters will highly likely deliver the Coalition a massive majority in BOTH houses. That is what a democracy is all about.
If Gillard has passed such laws to "Abbott proof" her legislation, she has actually tried to "voter proof" it too. That won't go down well and will add to labor's annihilation in both houses, imo.
How do you think voters would have felt if Howard had undemocratically labor proofed his work choices? And then left it so it would cost billions of taxpayer funds to repeal? Voters would have been even more furious. I think you underestimate the anger out there over carbon tax.
