Alternative Technology Assn Forums

1. 

   Diver
   Member

   While reading through the http://www.water.vic.gov.au/initiatives/desalination website, I noticed the claim that the Victorian Wonthaggi desalination plant will add $1 billion p.a. to the State's Gross State Product.

   My understanding of the measure of GSP is that it requires either the exporting of goods and/or services or is a result of a lessening in imports. As such, I find it hard to understand why a desalination plant that will cost the State many hundreds of millions of dollars in standing costs each year even when not producing water that it will not export in any case is able to be promoted as adding $1 billion p.a. to the GSP.

   Can anyone shed some light on this claim?

   Posted Sunday 29 Jul 2012 @ 7:03:42 am from IP #
2. 

   johnmath
   Member

   From the ABS website:

   26 The chain volume measures of GSP measure the volume of goods and services
   produced in each state. If the terms of trade for a state change significantly (i.e. the
   prices for a state's exports and imports change at different rates) then chain volume GSP
   will not accurately reflect the change in real purchasing power of the income generated
   within a state. For this reason real gross state income (RGSI), has been developed which
   measures chain volume GSP adjusted for changes in the terms of trade. This measure
   was introduced in a feature article published in the March quarter 2002 issue of
   Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product (cat. no.
   5206.0).

   One component of chain volume measures is: Electricity, gas, water and waste services - bingo!

   I gather the reason for the methodology is to avert the need to calculate the GSP from the ground up each year.

   5,900 5,757 5,788 5,632 5,660 5,559 5,762 5,821 5,985 are the figures (millions) for years 2002/3 to 2010/11.

   Look for a figure of 6,900 next year.

   Looks like the government is expecting you Victorians to cough up $1000 per head of population extra next year for water. Of course, industry will bear the brunt of this. But where do you think they will get the money from...

   Warning: a 92 page document will download if you click on the following link:

   http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B8FC640F1171FA49CA25795000136E3A/$File/52200_2010-11.pdf

   Posted Sunday 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:08:00 am from IP #
3. 

   Diver
   Member

   Thanks John.

   Interesting reading, particularly the recent QLD and WA figures. The chain volume measure of GSP over the next two reports will also be interesting. My understanding was in line with what I now know to be Real Gross State Income (RGSI). My mistake.

   Even with this in mind, it still irks me that the desal plant which will provide a permanent financial impost to households is being promoted by a branch of government as adding $1 billion p.a. to the GSP. The claim cannot possibly be considered an advantage once one is aware of fact but I consider that it is being promoted as such.

   You may not have heard but Melbourne households were already getting slugged for the desal costs before completion but the rort was exposed. Initially they were going to refund the additional charges as credits but have since agreed to proper refunds.

   http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/water-billing-scandal-grows-20120613-20am7.html

   Posted Sunday 29 Jul 2012 @ 10:58:42 pm from IP #
4. 

   johnmath
   Member

   We have the absurd situation in SA where the government didn't want to impose water restrictions in the last drought because they have to pay for the desal water even if it isn't used. So better to encourage people to waste water and get the public to pay for it through excess water rates, which have gone through the roof too. I don't even use mains water, but because I am on a shared meter in a strata corporation, I still have to pay for my "entitlement".

   Posted Monday 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:12:33 am from IP #
5. 

   Morbo
   Member

   Guess people have no one to blame than themselves. The law that every new house has to have a water tank was axed because people could not afford it. Meanwhile the house has 4 bathrooms and takes 400 sqm on a 500 sqm block.
   Plus the advertising for target 155 is there since how many years? 6 at least. Am at target 55 as we speak. Plus I never get tired to mention Australians use at least twice the water per capita that other countries with twice the annual rainfall do.
   Meanwhile next door hoses down her driveway even though its raining almoust every day and 3 houses down waters her plants even though 2 blocks down a backhoe got stuck in the mud a few weeks earlier. 4 houses down got a pool a few months ago.
   The way things are billed are not encouraging to consume less either. In summer I pay $1 for gas consumption and $99 for the 60 years old infrastructure. Same -ish for water.
   No other country gives away free water saving shower heads or a donation towards water tanks and grey water systems. Didn't like the carrot in the land of egg and bacon brekkie wrap, now you get the stick.

   Posted Saturday 11 Aug 2012 @ 11:21:25 pm from IP #
6. 

   Diver
   Member

   Hi Morbo

   Morbo said:
   The law that every new house has to have a water tank was axed because people could not afford it.

   What State are you referring to?

   Morbo said:

   The way things are billed are not encouraging to consume less either. In summer I pay $1 for gas consumption and $99 for the 60 years old infrastructure. Same -ish for water.

   I have long noted that reader's comments to relevent newspaper articles and various forum opinions all express sentiment that the service and usage charges are disproportional and a disincentive to conserve water. The authorities state that the fixed charges are to guarantee their income stream and often refer back to water companies making losses when water restriction impacted on 'sales'. I think the reality is that poor financial management that failed to anticipate decreased use when restrictions were introduced deserves no sympathy and is a poor excuse.

   The Victorian three tier system whereby water usage charges increase per kilolitre for high usage is probably the best in the country but the tier 2 and 3 water is still too cheap. There should be a moratorium placed on water and sewerage service price increases and cost increases made only applicable to water usage. This way, those that use more water pay for the additional infrastructure that is needed to supply same. Why should those who conserve water subsidise those who do not?

   For the interest of non Victorians, the current South East Water residential charges are...

   First 440 litres per day (lpd) $1.7511 per kilolitre.

   Above 440 & up to 880 lpd, $2.1266

   Above 880 lpd, $3.440

   The sewerage disposal charge is factored as being 80% of the mains water usage and so households save twice for lower use. The residential sewerage disposal charge is $1.7116 per kilolitre and the annual sewerage service charge is $335.68 A kilolitre of water saved on tier 3 is a combined saving of about $4.80 for every kilolitre saved.

   Posted Sunday 12 Aug 2012 @ 2:34:30 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic