Bazz wrote, "please point out where SM has lied".

That's easy, SM has posted that the reason for the Norsk Hydro redundancies is because their electricity bill has "doubled" due to carbon pricing. At no stage whatsoever has Norsk hydro made that claim. In fact, carbon pricing hasn't even begun yet. At no stage has Norsk Hydro claimed that their electricity costs have "doubled" for any reason whatsoever. Why? Because their electricity costs have NOT doubled.

A Norsk Hydro executive has informed the Labor party (as revealed in parliament), that their current and past electricity costs had "no" bearing on their decision. They also said that "future" electricity costs are a mere "part" of the many reasons for the redundancies .... in fact a minor part. If you read the company's statement you will see the "real" reasons for the redundancies. SM just made up his story out of thin air in a failed attempt to use carbon pricing to bash the government ... he failed dismally.

Until our politicians wake up that governments will have a shortage
of money in all areas and their revenues will decrease,
Bazz,
As one Labor cronie who went for as much as she could possibly get out of being a Q-Health bureaucrat once told me. There's plenty money out there, it just doesn't get distributed fairly.
She was right. It's up to the bent bureaucrats to straighten out a bit to save us from utter mayhem. I won't hold my breath just yet though.
Why should a high Court Judge be on a million a year for doing what ?, when a worker who keeps everything going by being a low paid cog in the wheel. Way, way too many on the public purse do not even remotely deserve the benefits they receive. Whatever happened to value for money ? How can we justify council CEO's & bureaucrats costing us close to a million Dollars a year for no apparent benefit to us. Health bureaucrats the same, in fact just about all Government agencies have hundreds if not thousands of people costing us half a million per year, yet we still have gross inefficiency & neglected services.

No FP you lied to me when you said;
That's easy, SM has posted that the reason for the Norsk Hydro redundancies is because their electricity bill has "doubled" due to carbon pricing.

On 24th @ 4:35 he Rusal had asked for the tax to be deferred.
On 24th @ 3:56 That Kurri would probably close anyway.
On 24th 9:19 the cost had doubled and plant would probably close anyway if CT not the primary reason.
25th @ 3:44 SM said referring to total electricity costs:
For large consumers that bulk buy electricity, the cost is going to nearly double.

The 25th @ 3:44 is the contradiction of where you lied to me.
SM did NOT say that the doubling was because of carbon pricing.

The only value I find in this exercise is that I will not waste time
reading anything from you in the future.

The claim that the CT is a big factor behind a decision to close down a business is factually dealt with here http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/abbotts-carbon-tax-deception-point and here http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/carbon-tax-not-linked-smelter-closure-howes. and http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/kurri-kurri-smelter-hydro-s-polluting-problem-child

In the spirit of the new politeness GY is insisting upon (the deleted posts were tame IMO), I respectfully ask SM to explain why the public should continue to subsidize Hydro-N's loss making Kurri-Kurri smelter with power prices below production cost while it operates as one of the most inefficient smelters in the world, pumping out CO2 at a huge rate compared to modern coal-fired smelters? There was no prospect of Hydro modernizing this smelter as the third world offers it far better options for capital expenditure as well as where hydro-electric capacity in western countries exists.

Aluminium smelting is in trouble world-over with prices falling through the floor. The Kurri-Kurri smelter had the problem of a high dollar over the last year or two, adding to extant problems, and was on its way to oblivion by any business measure, including losing half its book value per annum. It's only reason to exist was jobs, which can be covered with other initiatives to which the same public resources can be directed, without the carbon footprint.

I concur with SM's $21/MWhr figure, but keeping turbines running is no reason to burn coal at a loss to provide the low cost power base against which to compare this figure and come up with the "doubling" he calculates. Furthermore, power is 30% of the business cost,and if this doubling were true then this is raised to 46% (CP's 15%-19% rise?). Federal financial support for any export component mitigates the CT cost to the business.

1mwh = 1000 kwh = $0.21 c / kwh + 10% CP = 0.23 c/ kwh.

*Their balance of payments and GDP have been reduced because of the cost
of oil, ie the Brent price.*

Ah Bazz, but its not the end of the story. For everyone paying more,
others are earning more. The Arabs, Russia, and every other oil
producer, have far more money to spend. So don't ever only look
at one side of that coin.