After Alinta announced major issues in their data privacy controls, and being Chinese owned, I was wondering what are peoples thoughts on using an Australian-owned utility company? Alinta is Chinese owned, but have competitive pricing, Energy 'Australia' is also owned by overseas interests.
Is power something people are willing to 'Buy Australian'?
that's not the question asked by OP
ownership changes where the profits go
.
Yeah my point is I don't care - the (production) workers being paid are all here in Australia regardless.
money will leave here either way. Who would wanna pay tax here if you can pay it in the cayman islands..
I'm 100% fine if China didn't continuously threaten Australia if they had an opposing say in any of their political agendas being South China Sea, Fulan Gong, Uighur, treatment, etc
So as a result, yes I do care when Chinese companies run local Energy companies that send their profits back offshore and use it as leverage against us.
Well what's wrong with Australia owning their own services?
@[Deactivated]: Nothing. It's just not that important in strategic terms, because Australia will always have physical control.
If you want that to change, maybe ask Australians and Australian companies to not sell these companies, or to buy them back.
@HighAndDry: Do you know how you never hear about Rothschild? Why would they be allowed to be a middle man who buys and sells the carbon footprint certificates within Australia for businesses. Shouldn't that be a government department let's say the EPA? You know a governments job is, TO GOVERN.?!
@[Deactivated]: Why does governing necessarily mean being involved in trading carbon credits?
Surely setting up and administering the rules for the system is the actual governing part.
If you want that to change, maybe ask Australians and Australian companies to not sell these companies, or to buy them back.
I'd prefer we stop the foreign influence, that'll be a good start
@frostman: There's no foreign influence (if there is any to begin with), if:
We don't sell the assets to them, and/or
We out-bid them.
Any influence they have is influence we've willingly given them.
They would just nationalise the asset - it's happened many times all over the world
Yes. I'm immensely upset how our governments have sold off Australia. Turned all essential services into companies. Pandering to other countries. I'm guessing that they are just looking out for themselves and feathering their own nests.
Dude, we've all lost faith in this spineless government.
They bend over with a little foreign influence and an aldi bag of cash.
That's what happened when they almost sold the Kidman Co. farming estate.
Best thing is to try and avoid (where possible) products made offshore
Curious to hear about this 'leverage' they are using?
Curious to hear about this 'leverage' they are using?
Buying companies, land, infrastructure, the grid/utility companies, farms, national security companies, Telco and 5G - gives you more influence in that country.
The more influence you have the more leverage you have to ensure things go your way from a political stand-point
It'll be too costly and damaging for the sovereign country to reclaim all those.
@frostman: What, that they'll shut down - like the car manudacturers?
How much leverage did GM have?
@Almost Banned: GM is a company owned by it's shareholders, in China there is no such thing. For the sake of simplicity if you are a company you are owned by The Party. I will let you figure out how this is different and plays a greater role in Geopolitics.
Hint: soon it's your electricity, then it's your students, followed by the economy. Then we'll be saying Tibet, Taiwan and the South China Sea belongs to China.
@nomoneynoproblems: Australia already does say Tibet and Taiwan belong to China… It has nothing to do with "undue influence" in the way you're thinking though.
Buying those Australian assets provides very little leverage as they can simply be taken back if that is attempted. The leverage is solely based on trade - owning Australian infrastructure doesn't particularly help.
@nomoneynoproblems: No point arguing with @blaircam, they know very well the difference.
They will first argue against your points, when you hit them 100% undivided facts, they go silent and ignore you.
So you'd be alright as long as China will just turn around and bend over whenever Scott Morrison says so.
Like it or not, those are China's "core interests" that we're talking about. I'm under the impression that most Aussies would rather save the 10c/KWh than "say no to occupying the South China Sea" or "save the Falun Gong", whatever they even mean to the average Aussie.
I disagree with Oz money going overseas. Also disagree with, discriminating workplace and hiring practices at these Chinese firms
Many power companies are not 100% Australian owned anymore.
We've sold just about everything we can :(
"We've sold just about everything we can :("
that'll get diji1 going
.
Queensland energy is a still a 'government owned corporation' but AFAIK the other state's governments have sold all of their assets to overseas interests.
We need to go nuclear. We have the space for disaster prevention. We already have conducted nuclear testing decades ago. For any Greenies that don't agree, I suggest do your research and see how much better it is for your cause. It is a solution for Australia. Price plummet and increase output for getting back our industry.
Amen
Is nuclear cheaper than solar?
Renewables are cheaper and more efficient at present day, safer too some would argue…
Renewables are cheaper
Yeah when the government is massively subsidising them. "Cheaper"
You forgot to mention that renewables are not base load power, when there's no solar and no wind blowing.
@Skramit: Some would say market signaling. Some would look at the global players and see in fact the returns are irrefutable now in both developing and developed nations. Also whats wrong with subsidies anyways? Got a problem with the govt. you voted in?
Also whats wrong with subsidies anyways?
I'm simply qualifying your misleading claim that renewables are "cheaper" when everyones taxes are simply subsidising them making them APPEAR to be cheaper.
They are also massively unreliable as base load, meaning states now have to share power more than ever, and when multiple states have hot days at the same time, we now have brownouts due to lack of base load.
Yay for renewables though…. /s
@Skramit: Coal and gas were subsided for decades. Hell almost all legs of industry were, it's called investment. Yes the hybrid network hasn't worked yet here, it has in other nations and will be the progress going forward and the key word is 'yet'. I would suggest 'investing' could assist with such, hence making it cheaper pushes that narrative. Unless you have a better solution?
Unless you have a better solution?
I'm all for nuclear. 0 CO2 emissions and reliable base load power.
Whichever political party says they will build nuclear at the next election or the election after that (etc) will get my vote.
@Skramit: Suppose they don't? (mainly there is moratorium)
It's also not 0 CO2 it's very low though, there is other costs in the build and maintaining ect. the real problem is the waste it produces but that never seems to be addressed.
I would suggest subsidizing a growing market of renewables and multi developing grid and infrastru… oh wait. Nah doesn't sound like that's for you or the lay voter. Guess we will never know
@Skramit: Seems legit, nothing could go wrong there. Also don't need to maintain or watch that just leave it out in the open, she'll be right
@wiipantz: Come on, don't be facetious. There are some obvious, sensible solutions to nuclear waste on our huge, geologically stable and deserted continent.
@Skramit: Read below for a detailed answer, all attitude aside burying it really is only a placeholder it's not sustainable nor deasible over the thousands of years it would need to occur. Face it, the tech needs a major overhaul or as most countries worldwide move to newer solutions. It's laughable to suggest the UK is having issues with their renwewables as base load now and that is but one example. Move with the times and as I also mentioned there is a moratorium anyways.
@wiipantz: Other countries seem to manage the waste just fine, with less deserted land than we have.
If global warming and CO2 is in such a crisis, then buying some Uranium waste in lead line concrete 5km underground seems like a legit way to attack the issue.
@Skramit: Yep pass the problem down the line, got the message loud and clear. Have a look at the USA and it's nuclear waste, they are reaching crisis point but meh… someone else's prob not mine.
@Skramit: ..until the storage facility, maintained by lowest-cost operators, leaks into our groundwater :-(
@Skramit: How certain are you that it wouldn't need to be subsidised too?
I know in the UK they scrapped nuclear subsidies - which resulted in every single company pulling out as it wasn't viable. They then announced they'd go back to providing a pretty large subsidy, which was still rejected by every potential operator as not being viable.
I'm not sure it's quite as cheap as you think (which isn't particularly surprising if you genuinely think you can easily dispose of nuclear waste).
Renewables have dirty side effects too. Wind turbine blades are not being recycled, they end up in landfill.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2019/08/07/wind-turbine-blades-…
@goegge: Almost everything produced costs energy and is eventually waste. I just fear toxic and nuclear waste is a bit different to say the least
Sooo much cheaper yes
Once a solid solution is ratified and agreed to for the waste produced it might be on the table. At present, bury it… or fire it into space negating it's efficacy. Stop spruiking the pipe dream until that occurs.
Why are the current dry casks that hold the relatively small amount of waste not a solid solution?
I'm no expert but quarter of a million tonne of radioactive waste that won't break down for thousands of years, whilst requiring upkeep and facility costs doesn't translate a 'solid solution'. In fact I'm sure there is multiple studies on it, here 4 seconds of googling and just one I'm sure there is more and I haven't read the entire 100 page report but I would hazard a guess it would state the reasons and some. The other factor I am aware of aside the environment is actually the loss of precious metals to house the stuff. These rarefied metals and elements go to waste also and can impact on what we need here for many other better purposes and to be recycled for further use.
The flip side so as to show my original point, I have heard murmurs of using this waste as a fuel source. I like this idea and if it could be done without the hazards, I'm all for it.
http://www.greenpeace.org/archive-belgium/Global/belgium/rep…
You know what they say, out with the old, in with the nucleus.
We don't have the expertise locally, or the political willpower to build nuclear. It's easily billions of dollars in capex alone for a new generation unit, I doubt any bank would be willing to lend money for that when the LCOE for new build utility solar and wind + firming is almost an order of magnitude less. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#…)
The electricity market in Aus is undergoing high levels of uncertainty due to regulatory changes and possible market rule changes. Developers are reluctant to commit to high capex expenditure if they need to have payback periods that are as long as coal power stations.
It's also 5 years to construct a nuclear power plant for experienced operators in countries with precedence. That's a very long time. A wind farm takes only months.
Then there's the political deficit to whichever political party endorses or authorises it. It'll be negative, no matter how they spin it; so they won't commit to it.
Personally I do not mind nuclear, even at our current technology level. But the ship has sailed. We will be too late. If by some miracle we do manage to commit to building one today, I wouldn't expect it to be finished by 2030 and won't be profitable until who knows when.
LibLab selling off assets for years and been a lot of price increases. With no government monopoly ensuring low price, I'll go with cheapest price even if it's owned by Nazis.
I like your honesty.
As someone who has worked for a coal fired power plant, I know the newer ones are improving in efficiency. That being said I stand by a shift to nuclear. There is two reasons in regards to the response above. 1. The cost on the average Joe and the industrial sector.
2. The net output.
I totally agree the average personal household could and should switch to solar with lithium battery setup. The government should also be involved in setting up industry to manufacture these items at a heavily reduced cost to households. Well I guess that would be solving too many things at once. Prices, industry creation, lower power costs, environment damage..
The industrial sector uses majority of our power, not the households. We are talking 80%!! It is definitely not currently viable to replace this portion with renewable energies. This should be done via nuclear.
Yes we need to dispose of the waste. Maybe by using some of those vacant mine sites. We have the blessings of a massive unusable desert for that. Also the means of protecting the environment from getting contaminated.
With the fleet of Aussie cars nearing the apex shift to going fully electric in the coming years now would be a good time to start.
And if the Greenies didn't do their research we could try a thorium reactor to keep them happy. It's a lot safer but less efficient.
I was trying to remember the safer alternative, thorium. Why don't we do that? How much less efficient is it compared to uranium?
Much less. You also need an initial power source to get it into an unstable state. That is what makes it less efficient but safer. It can only fire off much less neutrons vs more unstable elements. The plus side is thorium content on earth is abundant.
Greenie supporter here.
I am against having a nuclear reactor using current technology and thorium reactor, but pro R&D into nuclear power. I would love the world to have a working fusion reactor.
We have the blessings of a massive unusable desert for that
Don't like the idea of sticking it in the middle of no where when climate change could result in various factors occurring that could make Australians have to move closer to the nuclear waste if the right circumstances occur.
Why are you against thorium?
It takes a few hundred years to become less radioactive.
Still a little to long for my comfort, but definitely more preferable
It's all good. I'm glad and appreciate all others opinions. Keeps life interesting and solves problems by using all angles. Latrobe valley has two millenia supply of coal, so we are good no matter what happens.
Imagine the luxury of being able to shop for a different power company. If only.
Whether it is AU or overseas owned means nothing for data security.
This thread is hilarious as the largest "Australian owned" energy retailer contracts the majority of their workforce from overseas. Ironic.
true, but assume you are referring to a call centre, so it's not like management, production workers or any decision makers are based OS
Credit cards, addresses and phone numbers vulnerable: More than one million energy customers’ privacy at risk
I've got bad news for you. Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
Edit: eBay, PayPal, etc.
Very true…
Add windows / mac / ios / android operating systems.
Add instagram/ Twitter or heaps of applications.
Millions of app can trace/listen users at interval of few mili seconds…
There may be hardly few on these planet who has not tracked or not profiled by now…
Alinta has never turned up as a cheap option for me. But when I'm looking for a provider I don't know who is and isn't Aus owned. Dont even check so…
Unless there is a really huge difference in price, I'd always go with locally owned and operated. Mostly because I value customer service and it's nice to know the money is being used to fund local jobs / talent.
Currently with momentum energy for gas/ electric and ABB for internet.
Power companies should all be nationalized. Problem solved. 100% Australian ownership.
And while you're at it, government, make it illegal for foreigners to own farms or houses in Australia. You take our money, government, do something useful in return.
I take it you are unfamiliar with the moneypit that was Australian owned generation assets circa 1980-1990. In Victoria in particular the workforce was FIVE times larger than required at certain assets.
I take it you are also unfamiliar with the FIRB. You're in QLD yeah? Also look up the AFAD. Do you even know the percentage of foreign ownership in your state? It's not anywhere near what the MSM or "A Current Affair" have you believe.
it may look not efficient to have that many ppl, but it's still tax money paid to local workers who will inevitably spend money on local economy.
is it really "better" to be running 1/5 workers but revenue goes to overseas and less workers locally?
is it really "better" to be running 1/5 workers but revenue goes to overseas and less workers locally?
Yes. Because it's an enormous amount of taxpayer money for workers to sit in smoko rooms and do SFA all week.
The money from the sale of assets was used, amongst other things, to curb the 1990s recession that happened despite your claimed "spend" and benefits to the local economy.
Those assets are all old, being decommissioned and require an enormous clean up cost. Those private companies will be paying that. Not taxpayers ;)
In Tasmania the 2 power companies Aurora Energy and TasNetworks are 100% Tasmanian and government owned. Besides TasNetworks there is only one other energy provider available and they're a mainland company that are more expensive than TasNetworks.
The general population want it all changed as they have full control over the pricing and really rip us off compared to you guys who can price shop.
I hear you. Preaching to the choir. Good luck explaining this to someone mainland who doesn't understand basic economics or inflation (ie. the majority of the 55+ population lol)
They just see 2020 prices being more expensive than 1995. "Privatisation bad! Prices bad!"
I majored in economics and work in a privatised industry.
Maintenance costs to the tax payer have sky rocketed because we're still on the hook and the numbers on the ground have increased dramatically whilst actual productivity has plummeted.
Tax revenues are "interesting" because the multi national behind the system now pay SFA tax whilst pulling over a billion a year from the Victorian economy. Although, to be fair, I have no idea what their actual profit is on that revenue - no one does really.
I recognise a lot of what your saying as mantra from my uni days though. Brings back memories. I believed it once too.
Maintenance costs to the tax payer have sky rocketed
because we're still on the hook
the numbers on the ground have increased dramatically
Whilst actual productivity has plummeted
Citations required.
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: LOL. I work there, I've worked there a long time. I know some of what goes on and I am comfortable with my stance. Taking the time to prove it to someone who happily states without references things like the following, then demands citations, isn't going to happen.
In Victoria in particular the workforce was FIVE times larger than required at certain assets
Yes. Because it's an enormous amount of taxpayer money for workers to sit in smoko rooms and do SFA all week
Those assets are all old, being decommissioned and require an enormous clean up cost. Those private companies will be paying that. Not taxpayers ;)
Bash away!
@kale chips suck: Citations
"Those assets are all old, being decommissioned and require an enormous clean up cost. Those private companies will be paying that"
Bonds held by VIC Gov for rehabilitation of generation assets - "The Labor Government has set new bonds to shield taxpayers from the cost burden of rehabilitation"
ACCC Report on sale and asset cost of Hazelwood "The Kennett government sold it
in 1996 for $2.4 billion. However, by that time the asset value of the Hazelwood plant is likely
to have been pretty well written down to next to nothing. "
"In Victoria in particular the workforce was FIVE times larger than required at certain assets"
Peak employee levels circa 1988 of 21,000
Hazelwood approx 750. Now approx 120 post closure.
Loy Yang A Approx 900
Loy Yang B Approx 190
Other assets state wide are far smaller. SECV is tiny and a shell of it's former self as any other interests are corporatised.
Your turn!
Would you care if it was owned by the Americans? Or is this just subtle racism under the guise of national security or "caring" about local profits?
Lots of Australian owned companies also lack appropriate protections of your data or don't take it seriously enough.
Solar power when the sun shines and when the panels are clean one of the biggest problems in SA.
Wind turbines are driven by V8 engines not wind, you can’t start a wind turbine without them.
Nuclear power first supplied by uranium supplied from Australia. When used store used rods in Australia underground, which reduces cost of shipping them overseas and paying for storage to other countries.
When can you as an Australian with an Australian passport buy land overseas or in China so it appears to be a one way street the gov has sold off everything and everyone off to overseas interest with the bullship that prices will go down, what a load of crap.
When can you as an Australian with an Australian passport buy land overseas or in China
Lol. Any Australian can. Just need to live and be employed in China for 1 year. Then buy a bunch of tax on top.
Similar to what occurs here.
Strangely boomers don't bat an eyelid concerning retired Australians buying property in Vietnam or Thailand…
But tell yourself whatever you wish to believe. Or keep reading Andrew Bolt articles. Just remember - Google exists. There really isn't an excuse for ignorance these days :)
Can someone explain the me why we don't hair buy it direct from the supplier and we need a retailer at all…..? Privatisation for the win..?
With kleenheat for gas and synergy for power (no choice on this one). Both local.
The French bought into our system and within a year took home over one billion dollars.
The govt knew, and allowed this to occur, but now the horse has bolted.
We have enough gas in WA to serve the entire country for over 1,000 years…. yet… believe me… the Govt are scamming to import American gas.
lol… i dont care who owns it, i just want to see some competiotion for synergy
“In 2015-2016, pre-ownership change, Alinta customer complaints were 377 compared with 2486 in 2018-2019”
Alinta is probably not a company to be with anyway. That’s apart from not complying to the fire rules of all data being based in Australia only.
Not in the slightest. It's all generated here anyway, not like we're importing electricity.