3 ms·

An interesting analysis. Feel free to reach out to me by email (my address is on my profile). Employment is certainly part of the reason the smelter remains op

An interesting analysis. Feel free to reach out to me by email (my address is on my profile). Employment is certainly part of the reason the smelter remains open, but as far as costing the country money since it was built, keep in mind the dam was originally built for the purpose, at a time when the country desperatly needed hard currency. We have the dam because of the smelter.

robocat 4y ago
> keep in mind the dam was originally built for the purpose, at a time when the country desperatly needed hard currency Yeah - 1971. Paid for by the government I think. And $600 million to connect it now into the grid is not chump change so there is that. But the transmission line from Manapouri to Tiwai can’t have been cheap either. Then again, it isn’t clear how much of that modern $600 million is to handle natural growth in Auckland (the DC link has already been upgraded). Meanwhile I’m guessing NZ imported oil during the oil crisis to run power stations up North!! I am guessing because the linked spreadsheet only goes back to 1974. The question is would NZ have been economically better off without the Smelter? Should it have been shut down long ago? What is the total ecological cost? E.g. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/436877/smelter-stockpiles-100-000-tonnes-of-hazardous-waste-near-beach https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/436877/smelter-stockpile... Was Tiwai “justified” this century because of sunken cost fallacy?