Talk:Hydro Tasmania

This article
Has the signs of needing to become at least two or three articles:- Suggested changes would be: It needs the change to not look like a dogs breakfast SatuSuro 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Current corporate structure and functions
 * Former longer HEC under the old legislation
 * List of ceos. ministers andetc

This article is also massively biased to the left! The Hyrdo is not "big oil" as the article suggests! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.204.252 (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Historically it was, has been (they even write books about themselves that say as such) - and if it is not now - and you wish to make an accurately WP:NPOV rendering with  citations as to the current status - please feel free to do so. SatuSuro 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What's your point, SatuSoro? That the HEC was a powerful organisation in Tasmania? No doubt it was. But it clearly isn't "big oil". For one, it was a government utility, not a profit making private company. Hydropower is a renewable, and it dominates world wide energy production by renewables, largely because it is the only renewable that is commercially viable. That's why I find the continued, and obsessive, opposition to it by the "Greens" to be utterly deranged. Are the "Greens" merely bushwalkers whose actual concern is just their favourite tracks and vistas? The fact is that Tasmanian now has diesel and gas fired generators because the Gordon below Franklin dam was not built. Think how much more of this there would have been if Brown's campaign in the 1990's for the restoration of Lake Pedder had succeeded! Now you can argue that the emmissions from the plants in Tasmania are "insignificant", and hence it is worth having them to keep the "wild rivers" and get back the natural beauty of the natural lake. But that doesn't apply to demands the Victorian Hazlewood power station be closed immediately does it? The article is very POV. Much of it properly belongs to articles on the Lake Pedder Protests and the Gordon below Franklin Dam issue.

I should also point out the assertion that 45% of ballot papers had "No Dams" written on them is false and is contradicted by the source. It was about 24,000 ballots which did, somewhat less than 10%. The 45% is the total informal votes, and a total of about 84,000 (or 33% of cast votes) were informal votes which could be counted as "No Dams" votes. Again, VERY POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've dealt with 212.39.162.130's several errors on the Franklin Dam Talk Page, and stopped by here to attend to 212.39.162.130's correct (but trivial) complaint that less than 45% of ballot papers had 'No Dams' endorsed on them. The actual figure was 33%, not the "rather less than 10%" that 212.39.162.130 claimed above, but the essential fact is that only 47% of voters voted for the preferred dam option, as now described in the article.


 * btw, above 212.39.162.130 wrote "Think how much more of [a need for non-renewable electricity] there would have been if Brown's campaign in the 1990's for the restoration of Lake Pedder had succeeded!" The answer is about 30MW, which is rather less than the 500MW of BassLink and the 10,000MW or thereabouts used in Victoria. Yep, Lake Pedder was drowned for 30MW.


 * 212.39.162.130, I'm not sure what your purpose is on this page or the Franklin Dam Talk Page. All you have done is nitpick on the Talk Pages, often with poor understanding and/or factual errors. Please log in and start contributing. 61.68.63.162 (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The contributor formerly known as Applejack1234