- Joined
- 20 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,544
- Reactions
- 1
Price of labor? Irrelevant!
Lack of investment in better manufacturing technologies? Irrelevant!
Exchange rates & exchange rate manipulation by competitors? Irrelevant!
Protectionist policies of export markets? Irrelevant!
High input costs? Irrelevant!
Noncompetitive industry? Irrelevant!
And do you actually think anyone is taking your political propaganda seriously?...
Not all our manufacturers are uncompetitive, and it is largely the highly energy intensive ones that ARE competitive.
For aluminium smelting, a $25 per tonne carbon tax represents about a 15% increase in total production costs for the refined metal. And it represents an even larger increase in the production cost of actual smelting (as distinct from simply selling the ore to someone else).
It's a no brainer that these industries will head overseas, especially if the carbon price is allowed to rise in future years as forecast.
The economics of the aluminium smelting industry have been in the public domain for 30 years now with a great deal written on the subject by industry, environmentalists and the electricity industry. Bell Bay (Tas) smelter historically has attracted the most attention, although there has been plenty written about the industry in Victoria as well.I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you mind providing a source for that figure?
Additionally, who are our export markets for aluminium and who are our major competitors?
I know you will find 80% of Aluminium produced in Australia is exported and parts are predominantly imported.Also the spin off in making our own aluminium it encourages offshoot industries in aluminium casting. The auto industry sources a lot of their aluminium parts e.g heads, water pumps and wheel rims locally also a number of irrigation products are made here. I am sure there are a lot more that will be impacted.
Also if the carbon tax costs $520 a year per household and that is modelled on full employment(apparently all jobs lost will be replaced by new renewable jobs cough).
How much will it cost per household if unemployment goes to 10% and the compensation has to be payed to those that are now unemployed.
What would the resultant cost to the working taxpayers be. Can anyone run those numbers through the model, please.
I know you will find 80% of Aluminium produced in Australia is exported and parts are predominantly imported.
A classic example would be the aluminium powder plant at Bell Bay. They take hot metal (molten) directly from the smelter straight into the powder plant thus saving the energy otherwise used to re-melt previously cast metal. Some years ago they used to make automotive wheels on site as well (most notably for Mazda).That is probably true, however the aluminium rolling stock is a bulk product, so therefore 80% would be sent elsewhere.
I am talking about the 20% we use locally I am sure R.O.H wheels export all over the world. Also many components for our cars and locally produced export engines are cast here e.g the Ford Falcon heads and numerous auto parts.
If you go back a few years then one of the arguments against hydro-electric development, and hydro is still the largest source of renewable energy in Australia and most countries, was that it creates virtually no ongoing employment.He constantly says renewables are a requirement(which no one disagrees with)but cannot say where the jobs are going to come from.
If you go back a few years then one of the arguments against hydro-electric development, and hydro is still the largest source of renewable energy in Australia and most countries, was that it creates virtually no ongoing employment.
You put perhaps 3000 people into construction then, once it's built, it's pretty much over in terms of employment. The same applies to solar - once built it just sits there. It's the same with most other renewables too - lots of jobs during construction but minimal ongoing employment.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't go renewable in order to preserve jobs in coal-fired power stations. But the notion that renewables will offset massive job and export losses in other industries from aluminium to steel to zinc just doesn't add up.
....
Much the same happened in the USA during the early 2000's when that country's energy costs became uncompetitive. If a business becomes cash flow negative on a permanent basis then ultimately it must close.
We make more aluminium than USA? Jesus....well if those free-market deregulation libertarians can't compete, then I don't see any hope for us, carbon pricing or no carbon pricing.
I suppose it all depends on margins, and if their revenue can't take the cost of carbon then it is unfortunately inevitable that they shut down, unless they can figure out a way to use less energy or produce their own energy (put up some windmills?). The latter is of course preferred.
Australia is competitive at electricity generation whereas the US is not. That's the crux of it. Electricity is one of the few things we're actually good at in this country, and it underpins a substantial share of our industry and wealth creation.We make more aluminium than USA? Jesus....well if those free-market deregulation libertarians can't compete, then I don't see any hope for us, carbon pricing or no carbon pricing.
I'd put it in the same category as nuclear power. We probably can make the molten salt storage idea work at least well enough to be practical (it's not as though the older coal-fired plants didn't have lots of problems and a ridiculous number of breakdowns) but the question is cost.What's your call on molten salt storage, they don't seem to have a lot of data regarding reliability and maintenance. Also they only appear to be building a maximum of 20MW, yet they seem to be expecting this technology to be the answer.
Well this sums up your ideology, if it can't make a profit when the price of carbon is added to it's base line shut it down.
Can we apply the same theory to your company, if it can't make a profit with the added cost of putting fibre to the office, shut it down. Jeez what a d!!k
Australia is competitive at electricity generation whereas the US is not. That's the crux of it. Electricity is one of the few things we're actually good at in this country, and it underpins a substantial share of our industry and wealth creation.
The industry structure has changed (for the worse in my opinion) but we're still reasonably competitive at generating electricity from coal. Not as good as we used to be in international relative terms, but we're still in the game.
I've already laid out a list of other factors which are more important, so perhaps you could address them instead of perpetuating your strawman argument.
No it's not. One is a market limitation on environmental damage and the other is a mass capital infrastructure investment. The two are nothing alike.
Is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
Or do you suggest that mineral processing industries get preferential pricing well below retail?
That is all well and good (if true), but what is your assessment of our exchange rate in particular as a bigger factor than electricity pricing? The steel industry for instance is shedding jobs now. It has been in trouble for a while. Surely the ETS is not a factor at this stage?
The carbon tax and the N.B.N are both financial imposts on the Australian tax payer
that the majority obviously don't want.
You can try putting lipstick on a pig
As for the steel industry, if you check I think you will find that bluescope made a profit in 2008 and we were running at close to parity then. The problem post g.f.c is lack of demand in the U.S and Europe due to a prolonged recession, you may have missed it tin man.
These two are completely separate and different fundamentally. NBN is an incredible and impressive infrastructure project - and Australia desperately needs infrastructure investment after 25 years of malinvestment in the non-productive asset of property.
Not only is this ad-populum, but there is no data to prove your claim. In fact there is data to the contrary.
You can try to be original instead of using cliche american nonsense.
Then you agree that your "carbon tax" has nothing to do with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?