*Coal-burning for aluminium smelting was on its last legs years ago*

Well that's it. Rio realised this some years ago, when they bought
their Canadian assets, which rely on hydro power for aluminium smelting. That or nuclear makes far more sense.

LF,

I see lots of comments making false claims about what I did or didn't say, To clarify,

I never claimed that the carbon tax was the only or even the main reason why Hydro was closing, only (As hydro management said) that it was a contributing factor, but that without the carbon tax, the closure might have been deferred. I did not call for further or continued subsidization.

I did say that electricity was a significant portion of their expenditure, and that the carbon tax would nearly double their electricity, and I didn't do this on a whim, rather on experience with power costs and distribution, and personal experience with aluminium smelters in this regard.

Taking a figure from a previous post:

http://www.energyaction.com.au/images/Delivered-Electricity-Costs-in-$MWh.gif

I agree that the Carbon tax will add about $21/MWHr to generation costs, pretty much across the board, the assumption in the figure gives an "average" commercial and industrial concerns with existing power costs of $120 and $150 per MWhr giving the increases of 19% and 15% respectively. Neither of these existing power costs reflect anything resembling what Hydro pays.

Big power generators (>100MW) have a problem with meeting peak demands that are 4-5 x the off peak loads, with equipment that is slow to ramp up and down. As a result the bidding price for power (every 10 mins) varies wildly from up to $1500/MWhr at peak to $0 off peak, and large consumers that have the ability to shift the majority of their consumption to off peak periods can usually negotiate a sweetheart deal that benefits both parties.

The same goes for the distribution costs. The capital and maintenance costs are same irrespective of the load, and off peak user can usually carries a very low distribution component. Also considering that very Large consumers usually have dedicated equipment which reduces the distribution costs considerably.

I know of companies consuming 25MW and paying $50/MWHr, the assumption that Hydro pays $25/MWhr or lower (which would give a near doubling of costs due to the carbon tax) is more than likely.

SM writes "I never claimed that the carbon tax was the only or even the main reason why Hydro was closing...."

So why did his opening post to this thread say:

"Given that the carbon tax is already a wrecking ball swinging through the aluminium industry, the coal industry, the steel industry and the aviation industry, will the Prime Minister apologise for the 344 workers and others whose livelihoods are now imperilled by her broken promise never to have a carbon tax?"

Why the need to apologize or even share blame for nature taking its course?

LF,

Short of reprinting all my previous posts on the subject (impossible with 350 word limit) please refer to my second post on the subject.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5157#139088

The carbon tax is not the the only reason or even prime reason, but it is a substantial and long term reason, and was specifically cited by Hydro's management. Hence the last straw analogy.

The question of whether without the carbon tax the plant would have shut at the same time, in a few months, or tried to weather the storm until conditions improved, will never be known, but the decision to close just before the carbon tax comes in, is hardly likely to be a coincidence.

ALERT-rotten-PORK: Manufacturing plants start to close ahead of Carbon tax.

Those who believe this also believe those proclaiming ability force the sun to rise in the west then set in the east..

"..the last straw analogy"! That camel was a back-broken and dead before any threat of a carbon tax. We are re-enacting Monty Python's dead parrot skit, with SM playing the pet-shop owner.