Comments
ok fair enough, do you mind if I ask a few questions?
How much goes back into Tasmania’s coffers from these numeorus overseas contracts ?
Why is a Tasmanian owned public company, whose main brief is to supply Tasmanians with power, ‘heavily’ innvolved in over $500 million worth of offshore projects?
Why in times of ‘drought’ wasnt a % of the basslink funding spent on other renewable options for power generation such as wind farms or solar generation ?
Why did the Bell Bay power station get second hand generators that have lower thermal efficiency than newer models when you say Hyrdo Tas is flush with funds from all these successful business ventures ?
Why, if as you state, the opposers and green symathisers are spreading slander and misinformation without any real knoweldge of facts, do you feel the need to respond in such a manner ?
Surley, if ALL the opposition dialogue is just bullshit and Hydro Tasmania is so successful, would’nt you just ignore it?
Posted by banjo pickin wood nerd on 08/03/07 at 01:10 PMMr Llewellyn’s spirited defence of the Hydro would be laudable but “...we must harness the dignity of Parliament to insist upon the truth”...look, I’m sorry…this is just too much.
How this parliament can be described as dignified entirely eludes me, as does the notion that ‘this parliament’ will ‘insist on the truth’.
There have been SO many shady deals, cover ups, evasions of accountability, breaches of due process, wastes of public money and such a commitment to total opacity that there is no prospect of me staying with the Minister on this.
Can Mr. Llewellyn truly believe that this is a dignified parliament dedicated to truth and honesty that is trying to hold its own against ‘deep Green’ forces?
Posted by Richard Barton on 08/03/07 at 01:22 PMI wish it were possible for all of us to see David Llewellyn sitting in his oversized chair at the GBE hearings, under-sized arms folded tightly across his chest, looking more resentful than a dog missing out on din-dins.
That picture said it all, and more, about who is responsible for the economic fluff-up that is Basslink.But once again, the Tasmanian Government wants us to believe that the Greens are to blame for this fiasco. The Greens! The one Party that opposed Basslink because it looked likely to become an economic and environmental albatross around Tasmania’s neck.
For 20 years.
I mean really David Llewellyn, you sound like an aging hippy conspiracy theorist when you bang out idiotic theories laying blame for Hydro’s terrible performance at the feet of “... the deeper Greens and their sympathisers in the media ... “
How about you have a look at that hedging contract David, you know, the one where Hydro gambled $150 million-odd dollars on Basslink before it had even made it through the approvals stage.
Or you could look at the way they fudged the environmental data in order to get Basslink through that same approvals process.
Or you could look at the $92 million annual cost of Basslink and its likely impact on Hydro’s bottom line, and Tasmanian’s power prices, for the next 20 years.
And you know David, I don’t think you’ll find any of these things anywhere near the Greens who, I repeat, were the only Party to oppose Basslink.
In fact, I think you’ll find the paperwork for these Basslink issues (and more) is in your circular filing bay. Or under your desk, which is where I would be spending my time if I were you.
I’m particularly disappointed that David Llewellyn is stooping so low on this - I thought he had an iota of decency, but instead he’s just another little boy playing another pathetic blame game, solely designed to hide his own responsibility for the mess Hydro is in.
Have a good look in the mirror David - you and your mob caused these problems.
You are responsible.
Jason LovellPosted by Jason Lovell on 08/03/07 at 01:37 PMNot another Green Conpiracy! We seemed to be plagued with Green conspiracies - especially ones which appear to be backed up by indiputable facts (such as a $70 million loss on Basslink, a $1 billion debt for Hydro and Hydro unable to meet its profit targets). I would suggest that if this was all manufactured then Hydro would nt be the basket case it currently is.
And what abolut that “dignity of parliament” line -we are all still spliting of sides with laughter. Come on Rod Scott - surely you can write better than this drivell!
However, on the serious side, the most alarming aspect of llewellyns’ ranting (apart from the usual blame the Greens diatribe), is the fact that his stern words were an obvious warning for Tassie journos to shut-up and toe the line. And it seems to have worked. The media follow-up on this story has been appalling to non-existent with most of our cowardly journo’s being reminded of whom controls the golden career path to the Government media Unit. Well done to Simon B for having the guts to speak-up.
Posted by Electric Mouse on 08/03/07 at 07:44 PMWhat a load of codswallop from Mr Llewellyn. Sure, the Hydro are good at some things, and they could be a class act if they stuck to what they are good at. It sure ain’t financial wheeling and dealing. Basslink was marginal at best. At worst it’s a financial disaster, and clear warning was given. As it was with the Meander Dam, repeatedly, by the Treasury, and as we now see in relation to the pulpmill. Don’t mention Spirit III, the pokies or the woodchip market. Sure Mr Llewellyn, we trust you turkeys, but not in the way you’d like. Blame the nasty old Greens for it. Goose! They reckon Lennon’s good at administration….is that counting paperclips?
Posted by Mark Hanna on 08/03/07 at 08:28 PMHow interesting.
I have made some amatuer comments at http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/The_costs_of_global_heating_are_final.pdf.
If i remember correctly the projects that created the animosity of the deep greens were Upper Gordon dam and the Gordon below Franklin proposal.
Further the latter proposal would have increased the debt of the hydro by 1.5 billion, more than doubling it.
The former was built and is now at 26.9% of its capacity of 1248Gigawatts of stored energy, the whole system has a falling capacity at 23.4% of 33737Gw in storage [05MAR07 ]http://www.hydro.com.au/Storages/Storage.pdf]
The second biggest element is at about the whole systems capacity, as is the biggest, South Esk, at 25.1%.
This is the fifth or sixth year where stored capacity has remained below 50%.
The Minister has had a solar water heating proposal that could bank some generating capacity in his hands for 8 months.
The light bulb proposal has been around for years. The Greens brought to Tasmanian an energy efficiency expert and we are still waiting.
No Minister the failings of the Hydro to meet Tasmania’s power needs in a cost efeective way cannot lie with the critics, they must and do lie with the managers.
However, the government of which you are a member can be forgiven, but only just, for not facing up to climate change, many others are also failing here.
However, recognizing your failure and making a change to an acive strategy addresssing the issues would be more prudent than attacking the messengers again.
This attack approach is really great because when the messenger is shown to be right you vcna have another bite by attacking them for being so. It is why those at the end of their tether resort to it.
Posted by phill Parsons on 09/03/07 at 07:43 AMControl the information (and the misinformation) and you control the PROCESS
And if you control the process, you control the people and more importantly the MONEY.
“SHOW ME THE MONEY!”
This “adminstration” - we assume to be our democratically-elected government - are nothing more than confidence tricksters and gamblers playing power politics with the public purse and the ‘commonwealth’.
And they ask us to ‘trust’ them.
By their fruits you will know them.
Posted by David Obendorf on 09/03/07 at 07:49 AMIf there’s a drought, why are we continuing to plant tree plantations and why are we considering a high water useage pulp mill.
Is it because we don’t have the faintest idea what we’re doing? Or are we easy marks for salesmen with big expense accounts (e.g. Spirit, Betfair) and now we’re sucked into Basslink?
Posted by Sumindra Sator on 09/03/07 at 08:39 AMMethinks David has won this debate, if not on Tasmanian Times, where that is impossible with the professional gainsayers, but more generally.
As strenuous as he was in his own defence, Simon’s piece in The Sunday Tasmanian smacked of catch-up, his sources struggling to maintain anything other than their “I firmly believe” line,
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21359406-3462,00.htmlDavid was well-briefed, the critics de-pantsed, you might say, something more than acknowledged by Sue Neales.
The modern Hydro is vastly different to the old ones on which green Greens cut their teeth all those years ago. Old Greens should accept they won that battle and honour the people who have cemented change within the organisation.
Time will prove Basslink a huge winner for Tasmania.
Posted by Nudger on 13/03/07 at 09:57 AMNudger said” Methinks David has won this debate, if not on Tasmanian Times, where that is impossible with the professional gainsayers, but more generally.”
Are you crazy mate ? the original postee Mr Lewellyn, whom I assume you are reffering to as having ‘won’ this debate has failed even address the questions in post 1 and has not sought to respond, discuss or debate ‘anything’ in response to his original post.
last time I checked debating actually innvolves 2 way dialogue. His position as minister might mean he has the first and possibly last word on this issue but I have seen no evidence at all of nay legitimate debate or attempts by him to actually engage in substantial dialogue, sorry to say.
Posted by banjo pickin wood nerd on 13/03/07 at 05:24 PMI think you will find that the Gordon power station is in fact highly profitable. Construction cost was $185 million and it produces $56 million worth of electricity on average each year. A rather profitable outcome by any measure I would have thought.
As for the Gordon-below Franklin and associated schemes proposed at the time, construction cost was estimated at $1.36 billion with an annual return or $126 million. Not exactly a profitable investment.
However, the actual Gordon-below Franklin scheme itself amounted to only $400 - $450 million of this cost and would have returned $63 million per annum at present electricity prices.
Not exactly a massive profit maker but arguably a better investment than spending double that on the King and Henty-Anthony schemes which produce only 62% as much power (combined) and do so with far less storage capacity relative to annual output.
And of course it must be remembered that Basslink was in fact supported by the Greens for quite some time prior to the mid-1990’s. It was only when actual construction was proposed that support turned to opposition.
I’m anything but happy with Tasmania having become even more dependent on fossil fuels over the past decade or so. At some point it’s near certain to backfire disatrously. Peak oil, West being locked out of OPEC supply (underway right now), planned formation of OGEC, climate change…
The 55% or so of Tasmania’s energy that comes from oil, coal and natural gas isn’t sustainable in the long term (though admittedly we do have a 300 year supply of coal at current rates of use in Tasmania). What, exactly, are we going to do about it?
Posted by Shaun on 13/03/07 at 08:28 PMNo, not crazy duelling banjo, just willing to hear something more than the tight-stringed vituperation that can make this site not only boring but ultimately ineffectual.
Posted by nudger on 14/03/07 at 09:34 AMhahha, well Nudger I am sure you may hear more if your ears are in the right place. And seeing as the goal of the Tassie Times site is to promote free ranging comment and discussion of these issues then it would seem to be effective if thats what it does.
Posted by banjo pickin wood nerd on 22/03/07 at 11:49 PM
