Power play snookers Hydro chief
THERE’S certainly a power problem in Tasmania, and it’s centred around Parliament House. (Queries over loss of Hydro leader, September 7)
Over-burdened Premier Peter Gutwein made a house-call to Hydro CEO Evangelista Albertini, meaning this week there’ll be a significant absence at Estimates hearings. After a long career at Hydro, Mr Albertini cited “personal reasons” for his departure. No doubt the off-the-record discussion in his loungeroom did get personal!
It probably centred on the domineering pressure exerted by the government over the GBE. The Hydro’s risk-averse board has been forced into loss-making power agreements with privately owned wind farms.
It appears Mr Gutwein is overriding qualified technocrats who question the Liberal’s assertion that there is sufficient generation capacity in their energy plan to provide bulk power to run hydrogen plants, while at the same time pumping energy interstate via Marinus.
Fortescue’s proposal for a modest hydrogen plant at Bell Bay would require 2.63GWh of energy, or 23 per cent of our current annual output. It would bring in $4.3bn of private investment, creating 3000 jobs. The wealth would add to Tasmania’s bottom line. Compared to the Tasmanian taxpayer forking out $7.1bn to build pumped hydro and Marinus to export both the power and the jobs, it’s a no-brainer.
It means Tasmania will require sensibly located and sensibly sized wind farms and batteries, unlike the current “wind rush”. To do this someone needs to pull a fuse in Parliament House. Greg Pullen
Miena
THE ENERGY CON JOB
THE Chamber of Commerce wants TasNetworks’ Marinus Link to go
ahead, says Andrew Catchpole. He suggests we can harvest our wind resources, sell renewable power to the mainland and create a new industry here – hydrogen fuel production. An economic boom!
Unfortunately, Mr Catchpole’s optimism doesn’t match reality. Tasmanian wind energy is being captured by a renewables industry that is like any other – it’s all about maximising fast profits at lowest cost.
As Minister Barnett pointed out in Estimates, 90 per cent of all new renewable energy is for export to the mainland – that’s where the jobs will go. The profits will go to offshore and foreign investors. The construction jobs will be 80-90 per cent FIFO. The much-touted hydrogen boom uses the same model.
FIFO workers will build infrastructure, Tassie wind, now owned by multinationals, will power it, and the hydrogen will be shipped offshore to
where the jobs are. What’s in it for Tasmania? Well, we get to pay for the Marinus link that will provide the profits for the offshore investors. We get our North West covered in giant overhead transmission lines built by lead-planner, TasNetworks. We watch critical forests and farming land bulldozed so the government can, during the construction phase, don hi-vis and claim they’re bringing ‘jobs and growth’ to Tassie.
The reality of the current renewables boom, and the Marinus link, is it doesn’t benefit us. Corporate investors win, we pay. Marinus is a con.
Ben Marshall
Loongana
MARINUS MAKES SENSE
READER Jeff Jennings asks why we need Marinus, and why cannot the subsidy for solar power feed in continue?
Taking the feed in tariff first, and the answer is national price of power.
We live in a free market for energy, and the current average price per kWh is about 3.2c. the current feed in tariff for Tasmania is 6.5c per kWh. Thus, the feed in tariff is double the price of generated power. Hence a case exists to lower the feed in tariffs to 3.2c per kWh, which would be fair market value.
Increasing the tariff only increases the subsidy to solar power and ultimately the price is paid by other power users. The whole idea of Marinus is to gain access to the national energy market for the next 30 years, which will see immense change in power generation and usage. Electric cars will not diminish the overall generation needs as some suggest. Quite the opposite.
Rather than rail against Marinus and long-term debt, perhaps the detractors could encourage the government to electrify the TasRail network which will replace $7m of diesel fossil fuel used annually.
COSTLY DECISION
Mervin C. Reed Tolmans Hill
I WAS expecting the article by Andrew Catchpole about the Marinus link and hydrogen production in Tasmania to have contained some justification of costs. After all many transitions are technically possible but only a few are affordable. Further reading of The Tyranny of Distance wouldn’t go amiss but this time focusing on electricity grids around the world. Many advanced economies, Europe especially, are fortunate with lots of nearby countries to share surplus requirements, small internal distances to manage and, most importantly, lots of people to share the costs. We can hardly be described as ‘a lucky country’ in this respect.
Gordon Thurlow
Launceston