Not quite a ‘nuclear free’ moment on climate change

Jacinda Ardern ramped up climate change and fossil fuel debates this week when announcing a freeze on any more off-shore oil and gas exploration licenses. While she may have put the cart before the horseless carriage this is really just the beginning of ‘a conversation’ – aka consultation – on New Zealand’s future energy use.

Nadine Higgins: Jacinda’s ‘nuclear-free moment’ puts Government one step ahead of the public

On the campaign trail, Jacinda Ardern declared climate change was this generation’s “nuclear free” moment.

When her Government this week announced new offshore oil and gas exploration permits would no longer be granted, the pundits went further, asking, was this her nuclear-free moment?

But I think the answer is no, not quite.

I can’t be sure whether Jacinda smelt fossil fuels on anyone’s breath, but the clear difference is New Zealand’s opposition to nuclear weapons was driven by public opinion. Even as US relations were dealt a major blow, the majority still supported the Government drawing our nuclear-free line in the sand.

This line in the sand, however, appears to have been drawn before the public has caught up, if the outcry from oil-reliant regions, mayors, companies and motorists is anything to go by.

That feels like it’s all round the wrong way.

It is round the wrong way – it’s notable that the Greens have applauded the move while seeming to conveniently forget their commitment to sound democratic processes. It seems that if the cause is important enough (for the Greens) then due democratic process doesn’t matter.

I think this highlights an arrogance from the Greens – they think that their cause is so just that if they push it through the public will automatically support it and vote for them in hordes. That is not based on any history or facts.

So, the move away from reflectorship back to leadership is a little jarring, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

There have been many reforms that went against the tide of public opinion at the time but were later lauded as a seminal moment in history that happened not a minute too soon.

I think about the reform that legalised homosexuality in the 1980s and can’t believe it was ever illegal in my lifetime.

The Civil Union Bill in the 2000s drew thousands of protesters out into the street. Yet a little over a decade on, civil unions barely even rate a mention because of the passage of the Marriage Equality Act.

While important as social reforms they were on a far different scale to a massive move away from the fuels that the last century and more of progress has been built on.

It might not feel like it now, but we’ve got a bit of time to figure this out, and time to get the public on the right side of this history-making line in the sand.

I think Higgins is right here.

After making her announcement (with mixed messages, especially from Shane Jones) and getting an immediate and strtong reaction Ardern launched into damage control by sending Andrew Little to New Plymouth to try and win over people who had twice refused to vote him in as their MP.

There is time to get this right. Ardern has to step up and show leadership here, and that means more than regular photo ops.

This is a flagship change policy for the Green Party, so it’s important that they put aside their self righteousness and arrogance and engage in explanation and debate with the public rather than dictation, and indignation at any criticism.

James Shaw has championed climate change as his big thing. He beamed at the announcement on curbing exploration a few days ago.

Shaw needs to convinced his Green supporters that promoting their cause will be enhanced somewhat if they engage with the general population, and persuade their case rather than impose it. And they need to learn to not throw hissy fits if questioned or criticised – that’s not how good democracy functions.

And Shaw needs to make his case to the wider New Zealand audience, beyond his Green bubble.

With such a wide ranging change being promoted Greens need to widen their scope somewhat. I remember being disappointed before the 2014 election when Greens announced a solar energy subsidy policy. I asked them why they didn’t include energy conservation through subsidising double glazing retrofits, and they said it wasn’t their current focus. That was disappointing tunnel PR vision.

If Shaw and Ardern fail to get the public on their side their grand ambitions may fall over as soon as the 2020 election.

Good should come out of their push for more energy alternatives, but if they want to succeed with a major transformation in Kiwi attitudes and energy use they need to practice what they preach, transparency and sound democratic processes.

They have time to get it right, but the need to get it right, or their big aims will be put on hold or overturned by a grumpy bunch of voters.

Leave a comment


  1. Griff

     /  15th April 2018

    The national party signed up to Paris agreeing to limit our emissions to 30% less than 2005 by 2030.

    Click to access New%20Zealand%20INDC%202015.pdf

    The present government has merely started to create the policy frame work needed to head towards honoring nationals global commitments.
    Yet we have a steady stream of comments claiming this is some sort of surprise change in direction from the greens .
    well duh…..

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  15th April 2018

      That’s a fair point, Griff. However the closer we get to 2030 the less realistic that commitment will probably seem and the more company NZ is likely to have in failing to meet it.

    • Griff

       /  15th April 2018

      Newshub can reveal the cost to the New Zealand economy to meet Paris Agreement targets will be $1.4 billion every year for a decade.

      But that money won’t be spent on reducing New Zealand’s domestic emissions – it’ll go towards paying other countries to reduce their emissions.

      In documents released under the Official Information Act, a briefing to Judith Collins on her first day as Energy Minister says the cost to the economy of buying international carbon units to offset our own emissions will be $14.2 billion over 10 years.

      Carbon trading is the process of buying and selling permits and credits to emit carbon dioxide.

      In the documents, officials say “this represents a significant transfer of wealth overseas”, and also warn “an over reliance on overseas purchasing at the expense of domestic reductions could also leave New Zealand exposed in the face of increasing global carbon prices beyond 2030”.

      The cost amounts to $1.4 billion annually.

      The Green Party says the bill will only get bigger if no action is taken by the Government to reverse climate pollution, and continues to open new coal mines and irrigation schemes.

      Co-leader James Shaw argues it’s cheaper for New Zealand to reduce domestic emissions, and it’s risky to take a gamble on an international carbon price which is subject to increase.

      “The Government has always said it’s too costly for New Zealand to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, but what these documents show is they haven’t been completely straight with the public because they haven’t been talking about the cost of paying other countries to do it for us.”

      Nationals policy was to pay billions to other country’s to reduce their emissions for us.
      Personally I would rather see that money spent here to actually reduce NZ emissions.
      We then own the assets and will continue to save rather than pay for some other country’s efforts indefinitely .

      • David

         /  15th April 2018

        “Nationals policy was to pay billions to other country’s to reduce their emissions for us.”

        No it wasn’t, they were going to do the same as we did for Kyoto, sign the document, then ignore it. There was no cost to not meeting any of the goals, same with the Paris agreement.

    • PartisanZ

       /  15th April 2018

      “Duh” is next year’s National Party catch word …

      … following on from this year’s catch phrase, “Virtue signalling” …

      • Gezza

         /  15th April 2018

        This is countered easily enough by Labour repeatedly stating that National is “whining”.

    • David

       /  15th April 2018

      “The present government has merely started to create the policy frame work needed to head towards honoring nationals global commitments.”

      Why would they do this? No other country has any intention of honoring these commitments.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  15th April 2018

        Write out 1000 times ‘I must not be a cynic’ and hand them into me by the end of school tomorrow.

  2. David

     /  15th April 2018

    They have no plan and its totally the wrong way round. Why not introduce progressively more restrictive emissions standards or things along those lines, because it would actually take some thought on how to transition. Nope they reach straight for the ban hammer.
    Progressively we can all make changes, my car complies with the latest Euro 6 emissions standards, I only eat free range eggs, wont eat any dairy product from NZ, recycle everything possible, walk or bike, all my houses have insulation and heat pumps as does my home etc etc which may not be much but if we keep making small changes they will accumulate into a better planet. Business see money in these improvements and being a better corporate citizen.

    • Griff

       /  15th April 2018

      Emissions standards
      What do Euro 6 emission standards have to do with greenhouse gas emissions Dave?
      I do think cleaner cars are good .
      Complying with euro 6 says nothing about your grams of CO2 per Km traveled
      Many country’s have indicated a date for banning new fossil fuel cars outright

      • David

         /  15th April 2018

        Euro6 is more than green house emissions it covers the ones that do localized damage to people, its progress.
        If Ardern had said she was banning fossil fueled cars that would have been awesome and would be a seminal moment worth celebrating. All she did was turn us into an importer of oil, I know what she is trying to do and she was kinda forced into doing something after accepting the greenpeace petition but she could have been bolder.
        The trouble we have now is its a wasted opportunity to spend some political capital in making a meaningful change, with a half arsed ineffectual one we now have the incredible moment of representatives of the oil industry as sympathetic figures. This is probably her worst moment so far and the Greens despite being giddy got nothing, come 2020 good luck on the campaign trail when there has been no reduction in fuel consumption or greenhouse gases.

        • Griff

           /  15th April 2018

          Dave we are an importer of oil.
          We dont actually use what little we produce we export almost all of it.
          The change in policy is merely to stop the issuing of new search permits not to ban exploration on existing permits or to stop oil production.
          The change will have little effect on our economy for at lest the next twenty years.
          We can not produce oil cheaply in this country.
          Especially as the regions that have the most chance of success are well south of any existing infrastructure.

          • David

             /  15th April 2018

            Yup, apparently our stuff is really good and we import the crappy stuff for local use. but I dont think it negates my preference that Ardern should do something about the demand/use of fossil fuels not the supply and wasted her opportunity.
            I am a bit of a fan of gas as its far less bad than coal and others and we are likely to need it for many many more decades and we should continue to drill for it. Having say an electric fleet of cars on the road will need extra generation capacity and having it gas fired is probably the only way we can do that.

    • sorethumb

       /  15th April 2018

      But I think the reality is that business doesn’t react to climate change until something tangible happens: an engineer designs a stop bank; an insurer puts up fees, inventors try to make cars more efficient etc.
      Business cannot organise for the benefit of a whole society. For example, if the government could bowl a whole block of houses and redevelop (without cutting corners to maximise profit) we could have energy efficient housing based on cycle lanes (once you get used to cycling it feels good).
      Capitalism creates wealth by efficiently utilising resources [think Hokitika in the gold rushes]
      that fits with the principles of ecology, however if we draw two concentric circles (inner/outer), the outer is the worlds ecosystem; the inner is the human economy?

  3. sorethumb

     /  15th April 2018

    This is a no win position for any government. I remember a significant acceptance of peak oil as a reality followed by a plethora of enthusiasm for new technologies. That enthusiasm waned as most were fizzers. The Monbiot pointed out we have “enough oil to fry us”/ fracking became a reality. But the fact remains our economy/society is not something that can be managed as though we were a large corporation.
    The economy is layered around essentials and on the outer frivolities. Society is held by genetic bonds at the centre (family) – although we adopt people into our family or greater tribe [Johnathon Haidt says we are held together by sacred ideas but they must deliver something to the group?]. On the outer we exchange goods and services for our well being [ think a woman in Tijuana selling crape paper flowers] . An economy without cheap energy is a smaller economy producing less; making us poorer. In the 1930’s depression people on farms did better than those in town as they could live off the land. Likewise those with gardens do better than those without – yet government mandated population growth has pushed us into cross-leased houses and apartments?

    • Gezza

       /  15th April 2018

      An economy without cheap energy is a smaller economy producing less; making us poorer.
      Not a bad point. Took a bit of finding.

    • sorethumb

       /  15th April 2018

      Utopian socialists will bless the loaves and fishes?

    • Griff

       /  15th April 2018

      An economy without cheap energy is a smaller economy producing less; making us poorer.
      Lets see what is the cost of energy? How do we make it cheaper? So we can grow the economy and make us all wealthier.
      Oh that’s right .
      Utility scale Wind and Solar are already the cheapest power source and declining .

      • David

         /  15th April 2018

        “Utility scale Wind and Solar are already the cheapest power source and declining .”

        Wind and solar have major problems that are yet to be solved at the utility scale, they are not the cheapest power source because there as massive costs to make it work as a system.

        Your figures have not calculated the capacity factor. A PV solar power source will only generate about 10% of the nameplate capacity, a nuclear plant will be closer to 90%. You need 8-10 times the size to get the same actual generating capacity, and you also need a way to store.

        The fact you miss this says you are either trying to misled, or you are painfully ignorant of this.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  15th April 2018

        These are good, but it costs money to make and install them, they will certainly have oil as a component and wind turbines need wind and are very, very noisy. This last hadn’t occurred to me ! They are enormous, I saw one being transported and couldn’t believe how huge it was when it’s seen close up. Heaven knows how much oil it used in production and transport.

        A tiny smart car was parked near the house; I admired it greatly. It was only a two-seater, but it probably goes all day on a teaspoon of fuel.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  15th April 2018

          Figure of speech, Griff and Robert.

        • sorethumb

           /  15th April 2018

          There was an item on RNZ about the Nissan leaf. The high capacity (170km) battery declines at 10% per year as opposed to 2 or 3%. After a few years you need a new battery costing $5 to $6000

          • Griff

             /  15th April 2018

            Say it slowly levelized cost per kilowatt hour
            That’s the cost of supplying each kilowatt hour to the grid .
            ie takes into account capacity factors and every thing else.
            For about the fifty forth time storage is not an issue in NZ… We have storage coming out our ears. Hydro lakes are a form of energy storage .
            Trans power says in NZ more solar would make the grid more reliable up to 2000mwhs because it self regulates .

            You are clutching a straws my friend .

            • chrism56

               /  15th April 2018

              LCOE is rubbish Griff but you aren’t actually knowledgeable enough to drop your mantra. That is because wind and solar generate when their power isn’t wanted and can’t generate when it is needed. At the very least, Avoided Cost should be used and don’t include preferential tax credits for a true comparison
              But then you know more than the EIA as well as TransPower and all the generators. (sarc)

            • Griff

               /  15th April 2018


              I posted the comparison between the IEA projections and what has actually happened
              if you believe the IEA projections after seeing that repeated failure over a decade you need some really really good help. The IEA is a legacy industry captured lobby group and has proven to be unfit for purpose if you want to discus the future of energy in an informed way.

              lazards levilzed costing without subsidy and takes into account the entire life time cost of energy
              I could provide more links to sources that give the price of solar and wind if you really like
              but hay you can not cope with one so reinforcing it will not help your delusion.

              I am not discussing AU ,the USA ,Germany or anyone else I am interested in NZ and our energy future
              I have pointed out to you multiple times yet you still don’t get it
              We have storage in this country
              Our main generation source is based on hydro storage .
              Not coal oil or gas.
              Hydro and geothermal as base load allow us to increase solar and wind with no down side for a considerable amount of total capacity
              As both these energy sources are cheaper than alternatives it is a win win

              [Stick to debate, leave out berate. PG]


              Some peploe .

            • Griff

               /  15th April 2018

              Oh and chisim
              This is the Australian energy market operator report on the HPR
              Please note it confirms what I have been telling you for days
              The HPR is faster and more accurate in frequncy response to crashes like the one were the crappy old tech coal plant failed than legacy turbines can ever hope to be .
              To the extent that they will have to rewrite the book on frequncy response to take into account how fast battery and inverters respond to such events .

            • chrism56

               /  16th April 2018

              You are back into your factoids and rubbish again Griff,. You are saying that wind and solar are the way to go for NZ and post LCOE from unknown and unlinked sources (not NZ) to support you. Then when something comes up to oppose that – you claim that isn’t relevant because it isn’t NZ. You can’t have it both ways.
              And learn how to read. There is a difference between IEA and EIA.
              I know what the battery did – about 1.6% support – so how many million were paid for what the coal fired plants provided for free? And how much inertia did the battery supply?

            • Griff

               /  16th April 2018

              Lazard, “the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firm, advises on mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, capital structure and strategy.”
              The source is on the url for the chart if you click on it .
              jesus h christ
              That’s real supportable facts not the opinion of some anonymous commentator on the web.

              I know what the battery did – about 1.6% support – so how many million were paid for what the coal fired plants provided for free?

              The coal fired plant crashed causing the outage mate
              You do understand that ?
              Obviously not.
              The coal plants dont provide grid support for free ,
              Read the market operator report .

              The cost of an asset is over its entire life .
              Saying it cost x for a one off incident is the height of stupidity.

              As is looking at one leading edge project built in 100 days and thinking that is going to compete with 100years of building fossil fuel plants.
              HPR is the biggest grid storage plant in the world .
              A record that will not last the year.

              The world is changing quickly.
              Your legacy industry’s are not capable of keeping up with those changes.
              Fossil fuel energy generation is a zombie technology. Like film cameras , photocopiers, mainframes and many other former dominant industries it is going to become nothing but a museum display to wonder over surprisingly fast .

            • chrism56

               /  16th April 2018

              So Griff’s great unimpeachable document that he is using as the gospel and to rubbish everyone else is from a finance company touting for business from suckers. The company has never built or operated a plant, nor do they have any regulatory fiat to get information. They can’t even cite sources, using words like illustrative, meaning they are guessing.
              As I know you don’t read the small print, here it is. The costs for solar are for a station in Arizona with 4000 hours of sunshine a year. That is why their UF is 32% In NZ conditions, that is halved, so costs are doubled straight away. The wind cost is from a UF of 55%, The long term one for Meridian is about 37% with very high maintenance costs. Lazard have life expectancy a lot higher and mortality a lot lower than plants are achieving. They have lithium batteries on heavy duty cycles lasting 20 years.
              I don’t know if it is ignorance, stupidity or arrogance driving you, Griff – I suspect all three. Now stop using Google and confirmation bias to display your ignorance on the subject.. Someone with a skerrick of knowledge would know the difference between EIA and IEA, which you have demonstrated you don’t.
              And by the way, you are in breach of copyright (and implicating PG as well) as you didn’t read the footer and definitely don’t have the consent of Lazard with your previous posts.

            • Griff

               /  16th April 2018

              Lazads is rubbish.
              So we go to Bloomberg New Energy Finance
              Solar energy’s challenge to coal gets broader

              Solar is already at least as cheap as coal in Germany, Australia, the U.S., Spain and Italy. The levelized cost of electricity from solar is set to drop another 66% by 2040.
              By 2021, it will be cheaper than coal in China, India, Mexico, the U.K. and Brazil as well.
              Onshore wind costs fall fast, and offshore falls faster

              Onshore wind levelized costs will fall 47% by 2040, thanks to cheaper, more efficient turbines and advanced OPEX regimes. In the same period, offshore wind costs will slide a whopping 71%, helped by experience, competition, and economies of scale.

              Or the world bank group
              Challenge and Opportunity

              Solar power is set to grow rapidly in developing countries, displacing fossil fuels. Solar photovoltaic (PV) generation costs have been decreasing rapidly. In several countries, the cost of PV power is already lower than coal and gas. The trends are encouraging: renewables are leading power-generation deployment globally, solar is leading renewables’ deployment, and developing countries already represent more than half of global solar deployment.

              Bringing markets to scale has led to reductions in prices. Clearly defined deployment strategies by governments, transparent financial and institutional structuring, and competitive procurement, including auctions, have helped de-risk and scale up markets. In certain countries guarantees or concessional financing are necessary in the initial stages of market growth. The World Bank Group is seeing a surge of interest from its clients in solar power as a result of the dramatic cost decreases over the past few years.

              Oh dear
              do try to keep up mate

              by the way, you are in breach of copyright

              even more rubbish
              That lazards Graphic is available from multiple sources around the web.
              I am sure lazards dont mind me pushing their expertise.

              Now stop using Google and confirmation bias to display your ignorance on the subject..

              Why supporting facts hurt your head mate?
              Face it you are nothing but an futile voice for a dying industry.

            • Griff

               /  16th April 2018


              Electricity is a convenient means of transferring and using energy. In New
              Zealand, our hydro lakes store energy on a large scale. However, until now we
              have had limited options to store electricity cost-effectively close to where it is
              Around the world, battery technology now offers opportunities to store electricity
              economically, close to where it is used. It can also store local sources of
              generation, such as rooftop solar, and smooth out the impacts that variable
              generation can have on the power system. Widespread, distributed storage could,
              and most probably will, fundamentally change the way that power systems will be
              operated in the future.
              Long-term, we expect that battery or other storage technologies installed in
              homes, businesses, vehicles, distribution networks and grid substations could
              alter our transmission business by covering short-term imbalances in supply and
              demand. We will be able to operate the power system differently, having more
              flexibility to schedule energy transfers and grid outages to optimise the use of the
              grid, grid generation and distributed energy resources. We explore these future
              possibilities in depth in our perspective document,
              Transmission Tomorrow
     Storage in New Zealand.pdf
              Transpower on solar.
              We found that the existing New Zealand power
              system is an enabler: the core transmission
              network can accommodate significant solar PV
              in addition to the existing generation mix and
              present demand for electricity.

              Ensuring a balanced power system
              – the existing
              generation can ramp up to cover a winter evening
              peak with 4000 MW of solar PV.

              Partly cloudy days
              – the distributed effect of
              fast-moving cloud cover across New Zealand has a
              negligible effect on the power system, even with
              4000 MW of installed solar PV.

              Response to sudden events
              – there is reduced
              capability to respond to system events. However, the
              potential magnitude of such events is also reduced.
              Standards for solar PV inverters could help improve
              capability in this area.
              We anticipate this reduced
              capability to become an issue as we approach 2000
              MW of solar PV.

              Power system stability
              – the power system remained
              stable. As solar PV increases, we will monitor any
              trends using existing systems and carry out further

              Grid voltage management
              – we anticipate issues as
              we approach 2000 MW of solar PV. These can be
              mitigated through operational measures, such as
              switching out transmission circuits, as happens at
              present over night when electricity demand is at its
              lowest. However, such sustained removal of parts of
              the grid from service can reduce reliability and
              resilience. Therefore, grid investment in appropriate
              voltage control equipment may be more appropriate
              to enable voltage management and maintain existing
              reliability and resilience when solar PV is reaching
              this rate.
              All five effects would likely be mitigated or delayed by
              the uptake of storage technologies such as batteries.

              Gee battery and solar for a more resilient grid
              Inverters are already required to meet NZ standards

            • chrism56

               /  16th April 2018

              Bloomberg is a media company with no expertise in either power stations or grids. They are just a clearing house for PR releases. Their name says it all. You haven’t presented facts, just a lot of half-baked thoughts. And your cutting and paste technique of stuff out of context is tiresome. You go all round the place as your thoughts have no coherent thread. You were arguing about utility wind and solar being the way to go. Then when I showed that the numbers were wrong, it has become household PV. Oh, and I forgot batteries in the mix.
              When you become a paid consultant, you might be credible. Currently, you are just a blogger with a fixation. And how is the name of the operating smart grid or grid running solely on wind and solar coming on?

            • Griff

               /  16th April 2018

              You did not show the numbers are wrong .
              You made a claim that is based on your ignorance.
              You halved the output .
              hello solar dont work like a binary switch when the sun goes behind a cloud.
              It still generates on a cloudy day.
              Due to our clear skys solar in NZ generates more than the standard 1000 watts sq meter used global.Here its more like 1200watts sq meter.
              Same reason why kiwis have the highest rate of skin cancer.

              your link to the EIA says it depends on the existing generation profile
              Ours is based on hydro not coal or gas as in the USA.

              If you are paid consultant god help the poor sods that pay for your nonsense.

              The EIA is just another legacy based lobby group for the fossil industry
              Their history when it comes with renewable energy is just as bad as the IEA.

            • chrism56

               /  16th April 2018

              But of course Griff, you know so much more than Solyndra, Solar Millennium AG, Energy Conversion Devices Inc, Q-Cells, Solon, Solar Millenium, Solarhybrid, Ener1, Range Fuels, Beacon Power Corp, First Solar, JA Solar, Suntech, Odersun, Conergy, Sunways, Scheuten Solar, Solar-Fabrik, Sovello, Solar Valley, Abound Solar, Centre for Solar Excellence, Bosch Solar, BP Solar, Siemens Solar, Swissolar, ECOtality, SunEdison, Sharp, Mark Group, Abengoa, Pescanova, Solexel AKA Beamreach.

            • chrism56

               /  16th April 2018

              As usual, Griff, you are so full of shit it takes so long to disprove all of it. However, the main point – Niwa in this document says:

              Click to access EnergyScape-Basis-Review-Section-2-_Renewables__E.pdf

              “The accumulated, average, yearly, solar energy gain for New Zealand is about 1400 kilo-Watt-hours per square metre (kWh/m² per year). ” That is a capacity factor of 15.98%.
              Figure 2.1.17 shows that solar irradiance, which is a direct measure of PV potential has a 30-1 variability
              So we establish that yet again, you don’t know what you are talking about, but make a lot of noise trying to prove that you do

            • Griff

               /  16th April 2018

              wtf are you on about now ?
              Clean sky in nz mean solar works better than in the polluted northern hemisphere
              That’s just a fact.

              That is because wind and solar generate when their power isn’t wanted and can’t generate when it is needed.

              That’s you
              Peak demand is not the issue in nz
              We have hydro lakes that store shiteloads of energy and can already supply peak demand in full/

              Solar and wind is how we will increase capacity to allow electric cars to take over the transport sector.
              No one will build new gas or coal plants.
              What are here will be retired ahead of the life expectancy.
              Smart grid
              like you know the new power meters already installed here and the fact that we already charge on demand will allow renewable to take over from the small amount of crappy old gas and coal we still have running.

              NZ is going to do away with what legacy fossil fuel generation we have
              Because climate change .

              As to the list of solar company’s
              wtf is that about .
              brain fart?

              love the niwa link
              first of we will look at what you said above and what you just quoted

              As I know you don’t read the small print, here it is. The costs for solar are for a station in Arizona with 4000 hours of sunshine a year. That is why their UF is 32% In NZ conditions, that is halved, so costs are doubled straight away.

              The accumulated, average, yearly, solar energy gain for New Zealand is about 1400 kilo-Watt-hours per square metre (kWh/m² per year). Although this is not as high as in the desert areas of Northern Australia, the United States ofAmerica, North Africa and the Middle East (2,100-2,400 kWh/m² per year),
              Oh dear you made up some bullshite there it is not halve is it now .
              Even more fun is hot panels reduce output.
              On a sunny day output drops off as the panels heat up.
              When its cloudy they cool between burst of direct sunlight so you actually lose less production than just straight radiation hours would suggest.
              You would know that if you had any actual knowledge of solar panels.

              Harnessing solar resources is the field with the most opportunity to result in a paradigm
              shift in energy utilization. Passive solar and direct solar heating (e.g. solar hot water heating) are currently cost effective. Other technologies such as solar concentrating boilers, organic / thin film and silicon based photovoltaic cells are increasingly competitive in some
              specific applications with a possibility to become attractive for mainstream applications well before 2050.

              Wind generation is evolving from a very limited starting base (currently less than 2.5% of
              electricity generation).

              Hydro generation capacity has stagnated, but significant generation potential (1,550 –
              4,900 MW) remains unexploited.

              New Zealand’s wave energy resources are significantly greater than tidal resources, but
              tidal resources may be more accessible in the short term. The technology required to harness these resources is still immature but is evolving rapidly.

              The gravy bit

              There are many myths associated with the variability / intermittency of renewable resources. The implications of variability and intermittency are often overstated owing to a lack of analytical review to assess the impact

              Thats you

              Solar has dropped in price far more than Niwa projected in 2009.
              it is now competitive well before 2050.

            • chrism56

               /  17th April 2018

              Phoenix, Arizona is about 2450kWhpa. NZ is 1440. 58%. And the UV parts of the spectrum are not a significant input into the output of PVs. We have already established that you know nothing of power engineering Griff. Now you are proving you don’t understand the underlying physics either. You are in a hole and continuing to dig. But then you know more than all the world’s scientists, don’t you. I am surprised that no-one recognises your brilliance.

            • Griff

               /  17th April 2018

              I know far more than you about both solar and wind
              for the simple reason they have been a part of my daily life for over a decade
              I supplied two more reports confirming solar and wind is cheap and getting cheaper.
              yet here you are still disputing lazards
              why is that ?

              As you pointed out sunlight hours in Arizona are over double that in nz.
              Why don’t solar outputs match that ?
              Because our clear skys allow more solar radiation to hit the ground per hour of direct sunlight
              You have even confirmed that .
              2450kWhpa. NZ is 1440Whpa.
              1440 times two is 2880.
              2880 is not equal to 2450.
              NZ 1200watts per sq meter
              Northern hemisphere 1000watts per sq meter because of human aerosols in the atmosphere.
              You just proved this for us with your own numbers .

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  15th April 2018

            I read that as five dollars to six thousand, which was startling.

            I seem to remember reading that the batteries are hard to find, but this may have changed.

  4. PDB

     /  15th April 2018

    It is Labour’s ‘nuclear-free moment – both this and nuclear-free were/are purely symbolic gestures to distract from major govt issues on the home front and that had/will have virtually zero effect on the outside world or the global issues it was/is meant to be addressing.

  5. admiralvonspee

     /  17th April 2018

    One wonders if PM Ardern asked PM Macron whether France’s ‘nuclear-free moment’ was on the horizon?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: