In the wash up following the disastrous Queensland election result, the conservative forces in Australian politics need to do some deep soul searching as to what is acceptable political policy for Australia. One of the cornerstones of policy, from both the Coalition and some within the Labor Party has been their fervent support for privatization of public assets. Like Campbell Newman in Queensland was, Mike Baird in NSW, Tony Abbott Federally, and many other conservative politicians they are staunch supporters of privatization.
From both sides of politics, the sale of public assets has been touted as a panacea for the economic ills both real and imaginary besetting the nation. We now have an unenviable track record of privatizing many juicy public assets. Governments put all kind of spin on the value of privatization, but is it all it’s cracked up to be, at the end of the day are the people better off ,or worse off, because of it?

The following ‘Crikey’ article was written well before the Queensland election but the sentiments in the last paragraph are rather poignant.

“ It remains to be seen whether, even given their exceptionally strong starting positions, the NSW and Queensland governments can overcome entrenched, and justified, public hostility to privatization. In the circumstances, defeat for either ought to kill the policy once and for all.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/06/06/state-privatisation-schemes-a-dumb-idea-regardless-of-the-spin/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

I have always had mixed feelings about privatisation.
Certainly I can see the commonsense in a government not getting into
business.
However if a previous government has got itself into business it then
it becomes a problem.
If it is a monopoly like power generation the public puts pressure on
the government to keep prices down.
This may sacrifice future reliability. Sound familiar ?

If the return on capital is near normal commercial returns I would be
reluctant to sell.
If not then I would get out as quick as possible.

Also another factor that would influence me would be the amount of
debt the government had and what affect the sale would have on the
debt interest.

I can see why governments really do not want to be in business.
It needlessly complicates government financial planning and taxes.

Just as I and others can see the commonsense in a government getting into business in the first place. The public necessity aspect is very important, and how governments have had to cater to societies needs, in transport, health, education etc, the obvious ones, lesser understood business like policing and defense, even at times into banking and insurance. The need for public enterprise is a very long list indeed.
Some government enterprise actually saves the taxpayers money, often unseen directly by most people. One example are railways, where profitable freight operations can be subsidising losses from commuter services, plus unseen savings for the environment and other forms of transport such as roads.

We need to get government, particularly government by union the hell out of business.

It was government being in the business of selling water that caused a huge flood in Brisbane, when the government operatives did not release excess water soon enough.

Releasing water a cash strapped Beattie/Bligh government wanted to sell was more than their jobs was worth.

God, just imagine idiots like Rudd & Gillard running even a dry cleaning shop. That is really frightening.

Railways, Paul?

Maybe you should check the number of trucks on the road, especially long haul and the number of commuters stuck in traffic jams.

The political parties refuse to consult with and take notice of the public. Governments find it easier to avoid direct consultation too. That will have to change or else governments will continue to be thrown out of office in short order.

Australia should be consulting with the UK, Sweden, Japan and others with a view to deciding how to package rail transport for private operation. There needs to be gradualism and learning as we go.

Never has a single privitisation benefited the public. The only ones who benefit are the corrupt politicians who subsequently go and work for the entity they privatised and their mates who they sold it to.

The reason why the railways first were government owned is that there
was no way finance could be raised for such a large system with such
a small population in the 19th century.

The system today is so large that I doubt finance could be raised to
purchase it. To save fuel it will become necessary to ban long distance
road transport. That situation will almost certainly occur by 2023.
The necessity to build the necessary road/rail/road transfer
infrastructure may also require government finance, if not direct ownership.
At present rail freight has been privatised apparently successfully.
They pay a toll to the railway to run their freight trains over government track.

All in all, privatision is a very complicated business.

On the subject of Railways, in the future unless alternative sources of fuel, diesel are found, it may become impossible to transport goods on large scale over long distances without the use of rail.

I believe that some time in the future rail will have another golden age.

The use of loaded trailers with train wheels would be more simpler than train wagons. Once at their nearest destination they convert back to on road trailers.

Is rail actually any more economical in diesel fuel than road? When you consider the trucks at each end, it may not be.

Now if we are talking about steam, using our great reserves of coal, that might work, & steam trains are more romantic. Then again, fix the unions, & coastal shipping may become viable, under steam too.

On the other hand, give me a small [few thousand tonner], sailing cargo coaster ship to run, & I'll even come out of retirement to do it. That would be fun.

Hasbeen,
"Is rail actually any more economical in diesel fuel than road? When you consider the trucks at each end, it may not be."
It is.

Whether the fuel saving would translate to modal shift is less certain. Even where it is paralleled by rail, road does have the advantage of being able to go immediately, and can carry specialist loads that rail can not. So while more efficient terminals, new and upgraded lines and higher fuel prices will certainly shift some freight onto rail, long distance road freight will not disappear however high fuel prices get.

579; the use of rail wheels on road trailers was tried sometime back.
They were known as road railers. I suspect the idea failed because the
forces needed if it was necessary to reverse up on a grade are too
great for road trailers.
A thought about 100 of them backing up requires a really big push.
Both the US and the UK tried it.

Wooley B:
road trucks use 8 times the fuel that diesel locomotives use
per ton/km.
In future rail power will be electric.

Hasbeen;
Sea transport is even more efficient than rail.
It is the long distance mileage that uses the fuel, and Volvo and
Mercedes are trialing electric trucks for shorter distances.
I think using power stations and electric locos would be more efficient
and a lot cheaper than building a big fleet of big steam locos.
It might well use less coal.
Automatic road/rail/road container transfer equioment is already in use.

Aiden, when I sit on my local station and watch the freight trains
thunder through with a crew of two and three locomotives and 100 plus
flat cars with two containers per flatcar, then I have no doubt that
is the way freight should go.
Especially when I know that it takes probably 200 trucks off Pennant Hills Rd !

Out of loading gauge loads could still be carried by road, but they are quite uncommon.

Bazz, it's not just out of gauge freight that rail's not well suited to. Some vibration sensitive cargo is also better off in the roads. And livestock is unsuited to rail – it's been tried but it was found to be impractical once the high cost of cleaning is factored in.

Cities cannot handle the large numbers of long-haul trucks that have to pass to wharves, holding and redistribution centres. There are other considerations too, for instance dangerous cargoes. It all needs to be thought through again, for example transport nodes outside of the capitals.

We are greatly diminishing the creative input and problem solving, and limiting development, by not privatising.

For any here who are concerned about low income workers, a better rail system would be of enormous benefit to their mobility and training, cheaper too. It is all in the planning, which governments don't seem to be that good at. Privatise policy advising and planning too.

"The use of loaded trailers with train wheels would be more simpler than train wagons. Once at their nearest destination they convert back to on road trailers"

This has been tried and the trailers, to be a success, must be far heavier than normal road vehicles.

The trailer immediately behind the locomotive must have drawgear capable of holding 4,000 tons (tonnes, whatever) and as the trailers cannot be selectively coupled into the train then all the drawgear must be of the same standard, that is the last trailer that is pulling nothing must have 4,000 ton capable drawgear as well.

The roadrailers that were used in the UK & US were actually dedicated
trains, they did not mix & match.
They still would have had the same problem of the forces on the trailers.
Animal transport has disappeared and I have not seen cattle wagons
for years & years.
Country abattoirs are the best arrangement which is what we now have.
I notice that trains often include some refrigerated containers.
The third track now being installed will improve the path of freight
trains through Sydney.

I also note that rail freight has increased and road freight has decreased in the US.

Bazz, as I said, the reason animal transport has disappeared from the rails is that it was found to be much better suited to road. But country abattoirs are often many hundreds of kilometres from where the cattle are, so despite their advantages they're not actually the solution.

It's good to hear refrigerated container trains have made a comeback.

It's a pity the Australian Roadrailer service never had terminals in sensible locations like Pimba.

Aiden;
In the longer run they may have to go back to drovers.

I notice that in Europe they are using complete truck & trailer on
flat cars with passenger cars for truck drivers.
Seems a lot of weight being moved unnecessarily.
It may work where the truck routes are either through long tunnels or
over difficult passes over the Alps.

I wonder if the loading gauge between Sydney and Parkes could take
the truck & trailer

Bazz,

If the road vehicles were on low-loader wagons then they'd probably pass the loading gauge but there is another problem, the wheel bearings on trucks can suffer damage when subjected to vibration whilst carrying a load but not rotating.
One solution that would reduce pollution is to re-introduce coal fired steam locomotives and gradually cut our coal exports.

Aiden, the amount of vibration on European tracks would be quite minor,
I think than here due to higher railbed standards.
It does not seem to get a mention in the articles I saw.
I think the construction costs and maintenance would make a large fleet
of steam locomotives much more expensive than a fleet of electric locomotives.
Personally I just love to see steam locos in full flight but other
than as a museum live machine, I am afraid their day has gone.
My very limited time on the footplate as a visitor shows me that these
days you could never get anyone to do the job of driving these beasts.

Sigh !

Campbell Newman's call of a snap election in Queensland can only be seen as one of the biggest political blunders ever in Australia. It is my belief the privatization issue was a major contributing factor in Newman's defeat. Mike Baird in NSW is about to face the music as well. Like Newman, Baird is a fervent disciple of privatization, both from a conservative philosophical perspective, and a so called economic rationalists point of view.
Baird's big call is for the privatization of the states electricity poles and wires, Conservative Labor which was responsible for the sell off of the states electricity retailers and some of its generating capacity, now claims to oppose the Baird planned sell off, but do they, given their pathetic track record on the issue which seen massive price rises for consumers following their privatize deal.
Like our opposition to Labor's power sell off, the Greens strongly oppose Baird's privatization plans, and our spokesperson John Kaye put together a compelling argument in support of Greens policy.

http://www.johnkaye.org.au/campaigns/no-power-privatisation/

As I said earlier, government should not get into business unless it simply cannot avoid it.
If you don't have that belief where does it end ?
It ends up with a Russia or East Germany.

It follows that a government should get out of business if it can do so
in a reasonable financial manner.
It seems that we will not end up with a power network like we
now have, because nuclear power seems politically impossible.
There being no other equivalent power source coming over the horizon,
then we will be dependant on localised dispersed power generation
with solar panels on every building and banks of batteries, of whatever type will be the most suitable.

With that in mind it seems a good idea to get rid of the HV distribution,
substations, poles & wires before the prospective buyers wake up.

As it is at present, if we do not sell the distribution system then
we must build nuclear power stations.
There is no alternative.

If you don't like that, then what is your alternative ?

Bazz, neither Russia nor East Germany were the end result of government getting into business; rather they were the result of government deciding to take everything over and restrict the freedom of the people.

Another option for the grid in Queensland is for the government to stop trying to achieve a commercial return on the asset value, and instead modify it to accept distributed power sources. This will make it cheaper than everyone having to rely on expensive batteries.

I've always been under the impression that the former Premier Campbell NEWMAN was a real tyrant and a very much an authoritarian with the way he handled his ministers and staff alike ? To have such a resounding fall from grace in their first term just shows that something wasn't right ? Further it appeared he broke many of his electoral promises as well, and treated the people of Queensland with absolute distain ?

Like Mr NEWMAN, Tony ABBOTT has also broken many of his electoral promises, consequently it would appear that he to is headed in the same way, not even managing to complete his first term, so it would seem ? Apparently it will all be made crystal clear, after the Party Room meeting, Tuesday next, where it's been inferred, a 'spill' will occur ? My only question, when will somebody start to govern Australia ?

Aiden said;
and instead modify it to accept distributed power sources.

But with what will you back up the distributed system ?
Wind and solar cannot do it and coal will be unmentionable or have too
low an ERoEI in the future to be usable.

O sung wu "when will somebody start to govern Australia?".

Sorry old mate, no chance of that any time soon.

Labor could never do it, the unions would never let them, even if they found someone in their ranks capable of rational thought.

The LNP can't do it. The voters won't give them a senate that will pass sensible laws to allow the place to be governed.

Nope old mate, we are going to have to wait for the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, or the Chinese government to do it after the collapse.

I'm not sure if we will see it, but our kids will. I suppose that is as it should be, after all it is they who have voted themselves onto the gravy train, & now into a corner they will not climb willingly out of.

Who was it who said democracy must fail, once enough realise they can vote rather than work for a living.

Why don't you come up & see us some time, while we have all this lovely cheap petrol. Could be the last chance of affording a trip.

Whatever's available. Hydro is the best choice if suitable sites are available, but there are other options such as CST with molten salt storage. And of course batteries; the amount of battery capacity needed for system backup is much less than that needed for individual backup.

Now I'd agree with you on that one Aidan, apart from a few little problems.

1/ As soon as you want to build a damn you have 40 thousand smelly greenies camped on site, lowering the tone of the neighborhood.

2/ Once it is built, some greenie long haired radical ratbags will demand the water for environmental flows, so they can piss it uselessly out to sea.

3/ Most of our few sights are already owned, & we are not very good at compensating people when we take their land/homes for the common good.

4/ We don't have enough sights to catch enough water for our towns. Better to use the water we have more economically for coal & nuclear plants, that actually supply reliable economical power.

No, batteries and other storage systems do not work.
Solar falls below 1 ERoEI and wind falls to about 2 with storage.
That quantity of hydro would need enormous amounts of water.
No those solutions are no goers.

Just read a review on a Finnish book on this very subject.

http://tinyurl.com/pxg9sog

Also another article part 2 by Gail Tverberg.

http://tinyurl.com/kjqds39

The first link is closer to our discussion.

In Sydney Morning Herald the Greens announce their policy for the state election.
They will close all export coal mines in five years and start closing
our use of coal, presumably including power stations.
However they gave no information on how they will backup the solar and
wind generation.
They appear not to understand that solar & wind cannot carry the load.
It seems that their plan will mean, if it comes to pass, that people
who live or work in buildings more than three floors above ground
should consider moving or find another job before everyone else wakes
up to the risk of being caught between floors.
If we are dopey enough to vote the greens into a position of power,
ha no pun intended, that is what they will do.
They seem to have no concept of what their policy means.

A very intermittent power system seems to be the inescapable result
of their policies. I cannot see a way around that.

Bazz, it's only inescapable because of an idiotic presumption of yours. If you instead assume the Greens AREN'T morons then it's VERY easily escapable! Phasing out coal fired power stations doesn't mean destroying capacity, at least not initially. It probably would do eventually when an alternative backup is in place, but it makes sense to go for the low hanging fruit first.

Bazz,
<<No, batteries and other storage systems do not work.>>
False.

<<Solar falls below 1 ERoEI and wind falls to about 2 with storage.>>
False again! How many decades old are your sources?

<<That quantity of hydro would need enormous amounts of water.>>
Arguably true, depending on what you mean by "enormous". But remember that the water can be reused, and in some coastal areas there's scope for using seawater.

________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, environmental flows are far from useless in most cases. An exception at some times of day is the Lower Lakes/Coorong because the weir is not coordinated with the tides. And I reject your stereotype of greenies and point out that sutuability includes environmental wnd social factors as well as technical factors. And pumped storage is not a significant consumer of water.

Aiden;
The information I have read is only weeks old.
It is true that the eroei falls even further when you add the battery
backup to it.
Solar & wind cannot build the new new energy regime and it is doubtful
that it could even maintain itself.

Aiden said:
It probably would do eventually when an alternative backup is in
place, but it makes sense to go for the low hanging fruit first.

True, the easy bit should be done, but getting started without knowing
what the backup will be is just crazy.
The only backup in sight at this time is nuclear but will they, the
greens, put nuclear even on the bottom of their wish list ?
Frankly most of them would rather we have no electricity than have
to build a nuclear power station.

However it is probably a moot point because it is probably too late
to start building a fleet of nuclear stations.
Further we may never have the money and certainly no one would lend
us such a heap of money. Our current debt rules that out.
We could of course blackmail other countries, no uranium unless they
fund our nuclear stations.

No, it is THE major problem being made worse by the Greens and Labour.
Labour would probably wake up and change its policy but too late.

Aiden I should have said;
It is true that the *overall* eroei falls even further when you add
the battery *or other* backup to it

Bazz
<<The information I have read is only weeks old.>>
Then where is it from? When the figures are that  low there's likely to  be somehting wrong with the  assumptions.

<<It is true that the eroei falls even further when you add the battery
backup to it. >>
Falls, yes. But even further than what?

<<Solar & wind cannot build the new new energy regime and it is doubtful
that it could even maintain itself.>>
Your  conclusions and doubts are  based  on false assumptions.

<<True, the easy bit should be done, but getting started without knowing
what the backup will be is just crazy.>>
On the contrary; failing to get started because we don't yet know  what the backup will  be is crazy.

<<The only backup in sight at this time is nuclear but will they, the
greens, put nuclear even on the bottom of their wish list ?
Frankly most of them would rather we have no electricity than have
to build a nuclear power station.>>
Frankly your stereotypes of Greens are ridiculous!

<<However it is probably a moot point because it is probably too late
to start building a fleet of nuclear stations.>>
Even though I reject your  reasoning, I share your conclusion. With hindsight we should've opted for nuclear a decade or more ago. The falling cost of renewables will make nuclear uneconomic, but so far the implementation is far slower than I thought it would be.

<<Further we may never have the money and certainly no one would lend
us such a heap of money. Our current debt rules that out.>>
It does no such thing. Australia owns the Reserve Bank therefore has unlimited credit. We don't need to rely on foreign funding.

Aiden asked;
<<The information I have read is only weeks old.>>
Then where is it from? When the figures are that low there's likely to be somehting wrong with the assumptions.

It took me a while to find it then I remembered it came from RMIT.
The unbuffered by storage ERoEI figure for wind is higher than I
remembered but the backup battery or other method figure is disastrous.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

3.9 for wind and 1.6 for solar in Germany makes them useless.
Of course solar here would no doubt be better.
I think these figures might be disputed by some as I have seen figures
less than 1 in some articles. I cannot remember what the parameters
might have been.
Interesting to see that solar in desert with backup barely makes 9.
Seven is said to be eroei below which the method is of no use.
When you see the graph of the energy you can see why.

>Your conclusions and doubts are based on false assumptions.

No its not. There are quite a number od articles along the same lines.

>Frankly your stereotypes of Greens are ridiculous!
Not from what I have seen & heard. I agree some are really way out
and other slightly more down to earth.

>Australia owns the Reserve Bank therefore has unlimited credit.
Ahh are you Arjay ? He is a wild money printer also.

Seriously, we will be in serious trouble if we do not reserve coal
and gas for our own use in a surprisingly short time.
So although we may disagree on the details I suspect we agree that
the politicians are letting the problem get away from themselves.

Bazz, thanks for the link. I see it's been updated with a postscript since last time, but that postscript really makes no sense. The idea that an EROEI of less than seven would be no use is utterly ridiculous. How useful something is depends on the context. Solar cells in the 1980s had a very poor EROEI but they were still very useful for powering public phones in remote areas, for example. And nuclear power has a very high EROEI, but non-energy costs restrict its uptake.

Anyway, as you can see, the figures you quoted were wrong.

More articles along the same lines don't stop your conclusions being based on false assumptions!

>>Australia owns the Reserve Bank therefore has unlimited credit.
> Ahh are you Arjay ? He is a wild money printer also.

Firstly Arjay's not a wild money printer, he's a wild conspiracy theorist who even has trouble believing Australia owns the RBA.

Secondly, I'm not a wild money printer. There's nothing wild about failing to pretend that Australia isn't always able to borrow as many Australian dollars as it needs. And there's certainly nothing wild about believing that how much we should borrow should be determined by employment and inflation rather than some arbitrary budget position.