Belly,

You raise an interesting point in referring to the aluminium industry. I recall seeing somewhere (probably in an OLO article, but maybe in a post) reference being made to the amount of electricity used for aluminium production in relation to total generation. As I recall, the claim was made that 40% of Victorian generating capacity is used by that State's smelter.

I don't know what proportion of base load power the NSW Tomago aluminium smelter absorbs.

What I would like to know is what the price is that these operations are being charged for their round-the-clock supply of electricity.

I would also like to know the precise nature and duration of any formal contractual arrangements with both Victoria and NSW for electricity supply these smelting operations may have. Is the Australian public, and NSW in particular, being effectively asked to either pick up the tab for continuity of supply to an industry that may be a particularly big contributor to our collective 'carbon footprint', or alternatively face restrictions in electricity availability so this industry can continue receiving supply at concessional rates?

Important as the above questions may be, there is a major issue with respect to thermal power supplies that is to my knowledge going unaddressed: that of waste heat utilization. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of coal-fired power generation in an ideal world, the existing operations are going to continue for some considerable time: they have to, and they will waste a huge amount of energy in the process run the way they have been.

Waste heat utilization from existing coal-fired generation may itself provide a pathway to expansion of sustainable BASE LOAD capacity to the point of eventual total replacement of coal firing, within the remaining life of those thermal electricity generating facilities. See:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=495#9790 and

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616#75523

Isn't it shameful to have to formulate critical national policy strategies on the General Discussion threads of OLO, 350 words at a time?

Forrest, you quite rightly asked:

>>>Is the Australian public…. being effectively asked to either pick up the tab for continuity of supply to an industry that may be a particularly big contributor to our collective 'carbon footprint', or alternatively face restrictions in electricity availability so this industry can continue receiving supply at concessional rates?<<<

Yes and the Victorian public will foot the bill for the proposed water de-salination plant that also stamps a huge carbon foot print on the environment, requiring massive energy to produce potable water.

AND

>>>Isn't it shameful to have to formulate critical national policy strategies on the General Discussion threads of OLO, 350 words at a time?<<<

Absolutely correct.

I think it is great that rank-and-file Labor members such as Belly are standing up against Iemma and Costa on this issue.

And, as much as I am not normally in the habit of praising Liberal Party and National Party politicians, full marks should be given to the NSW state opposition for having blocked privatisation. (Face it, Belly, they put most members of the NSW Labor Parliamentary caucus to shame. Without them, privatisation would now be law.)

Glad to see that here, at least, Paul.L acknowledges that the NSW government does not have a mandate to sell the electricity assets, the rightful owners of which emphatically oppose the sale. As I wrote elsewhere, "taking an asset from someone without his/her consent is theft" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#43228)

It says a lot that this fundamental moral principle counts for nothing with nearly all other proponents of privatisation.

---

Other material relevant to this discussion can be found at:
http://candobetter.org/NswElectricity
NSW Upper House leader Michael Gallacher's incisive and informative speech of 28 September at http://candobetter.org/node/754 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC20080828
"NSW electricity privatisation can be stopped" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2481 http://candobetter.org/node/742
"ABC gives free kick to Iemma, NSW electricity privatisation" at http://candobetter.org/node/665
"Mike Baird Should Make His Move Now" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2109&page=0#44422
"Winning the war in Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#43150
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/08/29/privatising-democracy/
Peter Debnam's FaceBook Page "Support Clean Energy NOT Privatisation of NSW Electricity" at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=22663528365&ref=mf
Peter Debnam's statement against privatisation at http://www.peterdebnam.com.au/news/speeches/electricity_privatisation_statement_by_peter_debnam_mp_-_12th_may_2008.htm

Fractelle's introduction of what at first might be seen as a red herring, the Victorian desalination proposal, into the electricity sell-off debate is in fact fortuitous.

Much of the existing coal-fired NSW generating capacity is in the Central Coast and Hunter regions, where coal reserves, coolant water, and the market are either co-located or close at hand.

The Central Coast is an area experiencing chronic water supply problems, so much so that an unequivocal commitment was made prior to the last State elections to the building of a major new water reservoir, the proposed Tillegra Dam.

One of the ironies (and that is not a strong enough word) of the sell-off proposal is that an opportunity to combine waste heat utilisation with desalination, large scale solar pondage energy collection, AND hot dry rock geothermal energy, is about to be walked away from by probably the only entity large enough to coordinate, and provide the market for, such a project: the NSW government.

The existing coal-fired capacity, far from being an embarrassingly redundant contributor to carbon emissions for the remainder of its service life, will actually provide the physical means for its own supplanting by solar, or hot dry rock, or a combination of both, as a means of BASE LOAD electricity generation. The concentrated brines that are a by-product of desalination and that are normally considered a disposal problem, in this scenario become a valuable asset as the temperature inversion collection layer in solar pondage.

All of this is achievable from the waste heat of the existing coal-fired generating capacity.

Kevin Cox's (OLO userID 'Fickle Pickle') article 'Hot Rocks Rock' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7662 should be read in the light of this most ill-advised sell-out proposal. There are some most interesting ideas therein. The associated comments thread is http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7662&page=0 .

Kevin suggests power production costs from hot dry rock are less than half those involved using coal.

Solutions, and prospects of savings, too!

WHY SELL?

Tomago is not the only smelter of Aluminum in the Hunter.
Kurri is looking at doubling its size, power and its price is a factor.
If it becomes a problem it may leave Australia.
Water in fact has been transfered to the central coast from the Hunter.
The Tomago underground water has never run dry.
We do need those jobs in the Hunter, in fact in Australia.
ALP rank and file just as conservatives in my often stated view must confront bad leadership of their party's.
My party right or wrong is in fact near insanity.
Watson told us he is leaving today.
The great shame at his loss can not hide the truth, had it been Costa and Morris I would dance for joy in the street as I did on the day NSW Labor won the seat that let us govern in our own right.
And with the very same joy , yes I am fair dinkum, on the night of the last federal election.
I will get that dance, but if it does not come very soon it will be on the bones of the party I love the NSW ALP.

I think Paul.L needs to locate the source of his claim:

"The facts show that the most economically liberal 20% of
countries are also the most wealthy, significantly outperforming
the others. On the flip side, the 20% of economies which are
least free are not only poorer than the rest of the world,
they are actually less free politically as well."

... a little more precisely than to just simply provide a link to a 20 page pdf document at http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf At least he should have provided us with a direct quote.

I downloaded that document and failed to find any of the words 'economically', '20%', 'significantly' 'outperforming' (or even just 'performing') within it.

We shouldn't be expected to wade through a 20 page document, and a poorly written one at that, in order to be able to verify Paul.L's claim.

As it turns out, the document is "The Klein Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Polemics" by Johann Norberg of the 'free market' think-tank, the Cato Institute. It was published in May and is the first serious attempt to demolish the thesis presented in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" published one year ago.

As it turns out Naomi Klein has responded to this article in the article "One Year After the Publication of The Shock Doctrine, A Response to the Attacks" at http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attacks

Anyone who is under the impression that Norberg's article may be credible should read Klein's article.