User talk:SimonJones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Simon. Welcome to Wikipedia. Are you able to provide more info and references for this edit to Murraylink? In particular a reference for the higher cost, and was the old info (about the operator) also accurate and should be combined with the new (about the owner)? Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 23:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Scott, the cost data comes from Murraylink's application to the ACCC (.PDF file, see page vi) for conversion to regulated status, where they say "Given that the net present value of Murraylink’s life-cycle operating and maintenance costs is $37.334 million, Murraylink’s regulatory asset value is $176.906 million (equal to $212.24 million minus $37.334 million). This initial regulatory asset value is lower than the actual capital cost of Murraylink." The ACCC did not reject this assertion (presumably because the confidential attachments to the application proved that it was true).
The old info was not about the operator, but about the consortium of contractors set up to construct the thing. That might be useful in a longer entry, but as it stood it was simply incorrect. Regards, Simon.


Great to see the good work on tassie stations. What do you think about where decommissioned ones go? Lake MArgaret is mysteriously still listed in the hydro pdf of storage details, but officially got turned off a week ago - it is one of many that the Hydro have shut down over the years -over to you? SatuSuro 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There's already a link at the bottom of the List of active power stations in Tasmania page to the Category "Power stations in Australia (including inactive ones)". That's clearly where the decommissioned ones should go, although that category page should probably be amended to show either a commission/decommissioned status or commissioning and decommissioning dates. Regards, Simon.
Well it will be interesting to see how I go, I am trying to demystify the HEC website, so I might take me time on this one :) Best Wishes SatuSuro 13:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Simon, that's difficult to do. A category is a simple list of inclusions. To go beyond that list (e.g. provide attributes), you need to write articles. This is why I created the Lists of active power stations... articles, instead of just making categories. Personally, I'd reckon that the power station categories would be more useful if they only included active ones, with inactive power stations consigned to a category of their own. However, given that the category was about 50/50 active and inactive power stations when I encountered it, I've left it alone, for someone else to tackle... knudge... ;) Webaware 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I'd have no objection to the inactive ones being separated out into a subcategory, though. Regards, Simon.
Another reason that I'm holding off is that there are many ways one could slice up the category, and they are at cross purposes - e.g. by state / territory, by type of generation, by active / inactive status. I think that once we complete filling in the lists of power stations and populate the category with, at least, stubs for each power station, it will become clearer which slice will be best. Or at least, we'll have a good chunk of data to have a discussion about. Webaware 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems you folks know what you're up to - I'd be only too pleased to hear any advice, _when_ I get around to going beyond simply filling up the current articles on hydro properties, unless someone else gets in before me... wink wink :( SatuSuro 12:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Do what you can, when you can. No-one's asking any more than that. :). Regards, Simon.
Before enlightenment, chop wood and haul water. After enlightenment, chop wood and haul water. I'm just making it up as I go along, getting tips from other articles I see. Also, I figure that if I do stuff something up, someone (like Simon) will come along and fix it :) Webaware 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Narrow road to the deep north - Basho - perhaps the dams of tasmania are in narrow valleys. and indeed some are deep  :) (as in my childrens education - knee deep knee deep knee deep!) SatuSuro 14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lake Margaret[edit]

Thanks it is a mess, along with most of the others :) SatuSuro 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo! Its off to more dams we go - just check out the absence of anything on the central tas schemes - either the dams or the power stations :) SatuSuro 10:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. If there's anything in particular you want me to take a look at, just post a message here. Regards, Simon.


Regarding you calling nonsense my grammar correction i have made at the short-tail stingray article, i can only suggest that you begin a thorough review of english grammar. The 89 guy 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You altered the article to add the bolded portion: "They are generally found on soft bottoms and feeds on crabs, mantis shrimps, steve irwins, bivalves, polychaetes, crustaceans and conger eels." That's not a grammar correction. That's, um, nonsense. SimonJones 12:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I agree with you that "Elcom" is a wessel word, but it was widely used by the NSW Government and the Commission in the 1980's. A simple search of Hansard of the Parliament of NSW will comfirm this. The sucessors of the EC of NSW seem to want to hide that history, but you can't erase Hansard![1]

As for being the last power station done by the Commission, I'm not too sure, as there were proposals and consulting and design work done for projects in Egypt, China, Indonesia and Thailand. Much of that took off just after I left the Power Projects division.Surfing bird 03:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Note firstly that in your Hansard reference, "Elcom" was used by an opposition member, and not by the government. The then energy minister, Webster, referred to "Pacific Power", which was at the time the trading name of the Electricity Commission. "Elcom" was formally the name of a subsidiary of the Commission, namely Elcom Collieries. However, "Elcom" wasn't the weasel word. It was the phrase "It is believed to be...". I changed that to "It was...", because that's what happened. The Electricity Commission ceased to exist in March 1996. One of the successors, also called Pacific Power (now Eraring Energy), retained the Pacific Power International division, which had done international work prior to that date, and went on to do further work both internationally and in Australia (Queensland). However, Mount Piper was most definitely the last power station that the Electricity Commision of NSW built in fulfilling its primary duty, which was building power stations in NSW. I don't mind leaving the reference to "Elcom" there, but if you want to elaborate on the external work, the best place would be in a new entry on the Commission itself. --SimonJones 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange, I can recall seeing the words "Elcom" on the top of the Hyde Park Tower around 1987/88, and on internal drawings and commission letterheads instead of the EC of NSW. I'll let you finish the article. Surfing bird 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not really disagreeing with you about the "Elcom" thing, but "Elcom" as a name for the Commission was never formal. When John Conde was appointed chairman, at around the time you mention, he attempted the name change but wasn't successful. The words "Elcom House" appeared for a while over the door, and "Elcom" was printed on internal stationary (notepads and such), but the name change wasn't registered and didn't stick. The formal name change, to Pacific Power, came in 1992. If you want to write about this, that's fine, but again, the appropriate place would be in an entry on the Commission. SimonJones 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)