Greens pushing to end oil and gas exploration

Gareth Hughes has had a low profile as a Green MP for some time, but he is upping his efforts to end oil and gas exploration.

Newsroom:  Greens want Labour to toughen gas ban

A supplementary order paper from Green MP Gareth Hughes threatens to rip the scab off the Government’s contentious ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration.

The Government announced an end to the issuing of exploration permits for offshore oil and gas exploration in April.

The ban did not affect existing permit holders, who were free to continue extracting oil and gas.

But as backlash mounted against the ban, the Government granted a significant concession to exploration companies.

Hughes has used a supplementary order paper (SOP) to try to overturn Woods’ decision. An SOP allows MPs to amend legislation that is currently before the House.

But the proposal has come at an awkward time for the Government.

A perfect storm of catastrophes has exposed just how reliant New Zealand is on gas. Unseasonably cold weather and low water levels at the South Island’s hydro-lakes has meant electricity generators have had to use gas and coal.

Unfortunately, two outages at the Pohokura gas field and essential maintenance on the Maui pipeline has meant New Zealand’s gas resources haven’t been ready to pick up the slack left by depleted hydro-lakes.

This has sent wholesale electricity prices soaring .The average wholesale price for most of October was $300 per MWh. Last October the average was just $102 per MWh.

I use Flick for power. They are usually quite reasonable, but my last two power bills have jumped up, with one over double the previous week ($100 for a week).

Hughes says the loophole means offshore drilling could continue indefinitely, defeating the purpose of the ban. He has called on Labour and New Zealand First to back him.

“The whole point of ending future offshore permits was to ensure a smooth transition away from fossil fuels. To extend existing permits defeats the purpose,” he said.

But due to us being far from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels a reduction in gas recovery risks forcing us to use less clean energy, and forcing us to import more fossil fuels.

 

Leave a comment

108 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  November 6, 2018

    This won’t end well. Already having to import coal for electricity generation and Trustpower predicting price rises that will bankrupt some electricity retailers.

    Reply
  2. Griff.

     /  November 6, 2018

    In other words unreliable gas supply lines to fossil fuel plants have pushed up costs.
    Large centralized power plants have always been at the mercy of such disruption
    look what has happened In AU with large coal plants crapping out being the reason for most of the blackouts not the renewable sources as many try to spin.
    All good from my perspective as it makes distributed solar/wind/storage more economic to build.

    Reply
    • Grumpy

       /  November 6, 2018

      The blackouts in Australia were more due to the ideological decommissioning of coal fired plants before a reliable replacement had been found. The ideologues didn’t realise that solar don’t go in the dark and wind turbines don’t go without wind. We will know the greenies are getting serious when they seriously start advocating nuclear to replace thermal power.

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  November 6, 2018

        The failures at Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B and Yallourn reached a peak between January 15 and 21 when there was an average of one generator failure a day, the Australia Institute report says.

        “Victoria’s brown coal power plants are a huge liability for the National Electricity Market,” said executive director Ben Oquist.

        Despite these outages, the Australian Energy Market Operator still managed to prevent blackouts as careful planning and back-up plans avoided a worst-case scenario.

        “A particularly significant trip was on the 18th of January at Alinta’s Loy Yang B, when it dropped off the market during a period of peak demand,” Dylan McConnell, a research fellow at Melbourne University’s Climate and Energy College, said.

        “This caused the price to spike close to the market price cap, and increased market turnover by approximately $168 million.”

        On this day, the wholesale price of electricity rose to $13,000 per megawatt hour.

        https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/victorian-coal-power-station-failures-put-nem-reliability-at-risk-20180409-p4z8l9.html
        Oh dear reality and you seem to be somewhat at odds .

        Reply
        • The Consultant

           /  November 6, 2018

          However, the Australian Energy Market Operator said there was no impact on energy reliability or security at the time.
          So there were no blackouts in Victoria then, even with a failure of generating plants Sounds resilient! Unlike South Australia.

          Well, that’s what you get with dispatchable, baseload power generators. And the answer is to replace them with wind and SolarPV, acknowledging that Australia’s at its limit for hydro backup, even accounting for a bit more squeezed out pumped storage.

          In fact…

          The major blackouts that hit Victoria over summer, leaving thousands without power, were caused by a breakdown of the poles and wires network rather than power stations.

          Ah!

          Meanwhile, in an effort to reduce it’s incredibly high power prices, South Australia plans to improve the interconnects not just with Victoria but other states to increase the total national market, so that they can access solarPV farms in the godforsaken Australian deserts for example – a big advantage to the Aussies there since they’re about the most barren places in the world and good for nothing else.

          But if the intention is also to improve supply reliability, does that not imply that those other places are sources of baseload, dispatchable power? What would these be in an Australia of closed-down fossil-fuel burning stations? There’s only so many Snowy River lakes for pumped hydro storage.

          Oh right, you don’t actually have any confidence in large, centralised power plants:

          All good from my perspective as it makes distributed solar/wind/storage more economic to build.

          For small-scale folks like you and Guyton. For industrial scale plants, society and civilisaton, not so much.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  November 6, 2018

            Oz has heaps of sunlight so solar power should be good for those hours but needs enough alternatives for the other hours without doubling costs.

            Reply
  3. unitedtribes2

     /  November 6, 2018

    we need plenty of that “beautiful clean coal’

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  November 6, 2018

      Gerry says coal is sexy.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  November 6, 2018

        Coal CAN be clean, if it’s treated right and ground very small. I was amazed to discover this, as I have always loathed coal for its smell and smoke…but it can indeed be used in a clean way.

        Reply
  4. robertguyton

     /  November 6, 2018

    Bringing coal and oil burning to an end in order to reduce the climate whammy ahead…was never going to be easy or painless. More troublesome than doing that though, will be not doing it. Gareth’s taking the responsible path. All power to his arm.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  November 6, 2018

      Yeah, but Gareth is sucking on the taxpayer tit. He can afford to be idealistic( apart from being a Greenie).

      Reply
    • Grumpy

       /  November 6, 2018

      Lets just sacrifice New Zealand and its people in a virtue signalling frenzy on the Global Warming altar, while the world’s major emitters and our major trading partners and close mates like US and Australia are backing off the greatest con trick of all time.

      Reply
        • Grumpy

           /  November 6, 2018

          So, New Zealand produces 0.17% of world Greenhouse Gas emissions. Tell us how much we would impact the doubtful “man made” global warming, if suddenly we just ceased all production and consumption of greenhouse gasses. Let me help, if the projected increase of 2deg C is accepted (as per IPCC), then 0.17% of that is around 0.003deg C. And this is what you are prepared to sacrifice this country for?

          Reply
          • Griff.

             /  November 6, 2018

            Ah yes the old I can do a shite on the pavement because my turd is only a little one gambit.

            Reply
            • Grumpy

               /  November 6, 2018

              ……but at only 0.17% of the size of your’s you are trying to stop an ant shitting on the pavement to make you feel better………

            • Griff.

               /  November 6, 2018

              Yess NZ is the only country in the entire wold trying to reduce reliance on fossil fuels .
              In your head.
              Meantime in the real world the rest of us actually live in.
              https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

            • Grumpy

               /  November 6, 2018

              Ah yes! The old Paris Accord con. That great wealth redistribution scheme that was designed to do nothing except destroy the developed world. No impact on China, Russia, India…..US now gone, Brazil to follow, that takes care of well over 50% of the world’s emissions. Paris is now reduced to group hug and Kumbaya sessions put together with huge airline emissions.

            • Griff.

               /  November 6, 2018

              yess
              What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
              But it is fun pointing out your issues with reality.

              China may have already hit the emissions goal it set for itself when it signed up to the Paris climate change agreement, a study suggests.

              https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/china-renewable-energy-sustainable-emissions-paris-climate-change-environment-a8501401.html

              ndia New report, India had promised to reduce its emissions intensity … … Systems Analysis, says India was “likely to overachieve” its target for 2020 and on course to achieve its 2030 climate targets:

              https://indianexpress.com › World

              The USA is making progress despite the federal governments issue with an Orange fuckwit infection.
              Liberal states make up about 65% of the USA GDP And they are taking climate change seriously. Backward luddite conservative USA will have to catch up eventually.

              As to your conspiracy .

              That great wealth redistribution scheme that was designed to do nothing except destroy the developed world.

              ROFL
              Righties when pressed often expose their gibbering loon side .
              As such they are more a point of amusement for me than an actual rational person to have a worthwhile debate with.

            • The Consultant

               /  November 6, 2018

              A study suggests…
              India had promised…

              Chuckle.

              Liberal states…

              What defines a “Liberal” state in the USA? Voted for a Democrat for president? Every time for decades? Two Democrat senators? Super-majorities of the Federal House seats? Super-majorities in the State Senate and House, not to mention the Governor’s seat? What then.

              Dingbat assumptions.

              One way you know you’re dealing with an unhinged fanatic is that they never, ever give any credit to their opponents for anything.

            • Corky

               /  November 6, 2018

              Well, if we are an amusement for you..why waste your time debating us? You can’t have fun all the time. A rational person like you would go mad given you are being starved of decent debate.

              Why not bugger off to The Standard, or the many scientific blogs that only accept hardcore scientific debate?

              Your choice to stay here is irrational.

            • Grumpy

               /  November 6, 2018

              What a joke! India’s “Paris Commitment” was to double its greenhouse gas output by 2030. China had a similar “commitment” and the alarmists say this is absolutely wonderful!! In the meantime New Zealand is driven into poverty. What lying dishonest charlatans these warmists are.

            • Griff.

               /  November 6, 2018

              ROFL
              Still using the its only a small shite argument.
              It is about emissions per capita.

              Every human has an equal right to do a shite on the pavement.
              At the moment every one in the west is doing lots of big turds all over the place and a peasant in India only doing small ones once in a while.

              In your world you think those in India should reduce their 1.4 tonnes per person as much as we reduce our 7.6 tonnes per person and the USA’s reduced its 16.5 tonnes per person. That’s not how it works.

              Once we get to 1.4 tonnes per person then maybe we can talk about whats fair for India’s contribution .

              “In the meantime New Zealand is driven into poverty.”
              Oh look some one makes up more shite .
              Jesus you guys wouldn’t know reality if it was your mother .
              Gas is a global commodity.
              It would be cheaper for us to import what we need than use our own.
              Our gas fields are running out .
              No new fields have been discovered as yet in the considerable prospects already released for exploration. This best we have is the southern prospect with a one in five chance of finding gas.
              Righties seem sure that gas is there for the taking.
              That is just more right wing fantersy talking.

              The permit ban is more about telling NZ industry what to expect in the future so they can plan long term rather than an intimidate impact on our co2 emissions.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 6, 2018

              Why on earth would any company trust this Government to allow development and profitable operation even if and when a discovery is made? I can’t imagine many if any will bother to invest in these explorations now.

          • The Consultant

             /  November 6, 2018

            China may have already hit the emissions goal it set for itself when it signed up to the Paris climate change agreement, a study suggests.

            This is too funny. From Griff’s link of August 2018:

            The research, led by Professor Dabo Guan of the University of East Anglia and published last month in the journal Nature Geoscience, says China’s emissions peaked in 2013 at a level of 9.53 gigatons of CO2, and have declined each subsequent year to 2016 – the last year of the study.

            And now…… (drum roll): the 2017 Global Carbon Budget,:

            By the end of 2017, global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and industry are projected to rise by about 2% compared with the preceding year, with an uncertainty range between 0.8% and 3%. The news follows three years of emissions staying relatively flat.

            Lead researcher Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: “Global carbon dioxide emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing.”

            Budget co-author Glen Peters, research director at CICERO in Oslo, who led one of the studies, said:

            “The return to growth in global emissions in 2017 is largely due to a return to growth in Chinese emissions, projected to grow by 3.5% in 2017 after two years with declining emissions. The use of coal, the main fuel source in China, may rise by 3% due to stronger growth in industrial production and lower hydro-power generation due to less rainfall.”

            Maybe it’s installing all those renewables, as per the economic analysis I put in below? What will 2018 data bring?

            Reply
  5. The Consultant

     /  November 6, 2018

    A feudalistic society where rich toffs will laughingly pay for very expensive sources of energy that are convenient, while the lower classes will scrape along as best they can and/or head for the world of tiny, “self-sufficient” plots of land – or bolt overseas.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  November 6, 2018

      Reply
      • Grumpy

         /  November 6, 2018

        You left out Hydro which accounts for the vast majority of New Zealand’s energy needs.

        Reply
    • The Consultant

       /  November 6, 2018

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  November 6, 2018

        When dealing with con artists you have to know where the pea is hiding.
        In this case the tell is “Residential”.
        Because the taxes applied to energy distorts what the retail market pays.

        Reply
        • The Consultant

           /  November 6, 2018

          Good to know that “residential” does not matter.

          I’m sure the “Renewable Surcharge” will disappear.

          Some decade.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  November 6, 2018

          ”Because the taxes applied to energy distorts what the retail market pays.”

          So tax is just a temporary aberration that will be abandoned down the track , leading to a residential energy windfall drop in price?

          Reply
  6. Gerrit

     /  November 6, 2018

    Never mind the fancy graphs. Will those that advocate for the abolishment of oil and gas exploration or recovery please go without, as from today, all products that are derived from fossil fuels.

    How many will and how many are hypocrites?.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  November 6, 2018

      Simple and direct. I like that, Gerrit. I would answer your question, but won’t, just in case it’s rhetorical.

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  November 6, 2018

        No it is not rhetorical. Honest answers from those Greenies that will walk the talk.

        How many will not buy new tires for their bikes? How many are happy to ride on newly tar sealed roads? How many will forsake their electric car filled with plastic and steel plus shipped here on a fossil fueled vessel? How many will forgo air travel?

        None are willing to demonstrate how we can live without fossil fuel or transition to alternatives.

        Don’t see any Greens riding on wooden rimmed bikes, filling potholes in tar seal with sand, walking any distance to not drive, or stop flying about the place.

        .

        Reply
        • “None are willing to demonstrate how we can live without fossil fuel or transition to alternatives.

          Don’t see any Greens riding on wooden rimmed bikes, filling potholes in tar seal with sand, walking any distance to not drive, or stop flying about the place.”

          Complete nonsense. Greens everywhere are transitioning to a life with less fossil fuel use. And why would I ride a “wooden rimmed bike” when a second-hand steel-rimmed bike is available? You don’t see greens walking??? I do. And filling pot holes? I did and wrote about it in a NZ Gardener article 5 years ago! Come on, Gerrit, your attack is feeble!

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  November 6, 2018

            ”Complete nonsense. Greens everywhere are transitioning to a life with less fossil fuel use. ”

            The question you have to ask, Robert, given present alternative green technologies and choices, are the Greens evolving..or devolving?

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              Solving, Corky, solving the problems we face. One of those problems is ossified thinking by non-Greens.

    • It’s a stupid argument, Gerrit. For starters, The Greens aren’t arguing for immediate abolishment and cessation of use of fossil fuels. Your attempt flush out hypocrites should at least be honest. Corky, I wanted to write, “you should know better” but couldn’t.

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  November 6, 2018

        So yes the Greens are hypocrites. Thanks Robert.

        I guess that made the question rhetorical? Seeing you got hooked line and sinker?

        You stopped using fossil fuel derived products yet?

        If not…when?

        Reply
        • ???
          Truly, ???

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  November 6, 2018

            So that’s a “No”

            and a “Never”.

            Reply
            • It’s more a “why bother when you supply the answers to your own questions?” Should those people most intensely researching alternatives to fossil fuels walk to their laboratories for fear of being called “hypocrites” by dull thinkers?

            • Gezza

               /  November 6, 2018

              No. They could use electric vehicles, scooters, horses, bicylcles for example. If they were serious. Wotsisface with the dreads used a skateboard.

            • Gezza

               /  November 6, 2018

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              Nonsense. An highly-valued, critical player in the science of greenhouse gas reduction, working on potentially planet-saving research should travel by horse, for fear of being called a hypocrite by some gormless commenter on a blog on some far-flue isle in the South Pacific? It’s like saying Paula Bennett should sleep in her car if she really cares about homeless people. She looks rough enough as it is and I wouldn’t wish it on her, though you hypocrite-spotters will no doubt soon be calling for her to do so. Gerry calls coal, “sexy” – he’s a hypocrite if he doesn’t take some action to show he believes what he said.

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              Pathetic. Just get yourself a skateboard and stop making excuses.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              “far flung”
              Nándor Steven Tánczos

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              You surely mean a skateboard gnawed from wood, running on bearings made from naturally-shed pearls, lubricated with ear wax. Anything else surely is make from fossil fuels?

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              That would probably be the best kind but the choice is up to you.

              If it’s good enuf for JAG to bike to hospital to have a baby and bring it home in the carrier basket, stop making excuses and get on a bike.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              Bike? Nah, I’ll use me skateboard; it’s a pearler!

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              Good man. Sorted then.

  7. The Consultant

     /  November 6, 2018

    Good news, EU increases 2030 renewables target to 32 percent

    Bad news:

    German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier rejected the higher target as unrealistic and called for a compromise of 30 percent. Germany still depends heavily on coal for electricity production. Germany on Wednesday announced it would not meet its 2020 climate protection goal.

    Wonder where the other 68% will come from post 2030? Unless 100% renewables is the aim – and of course it is.

    Batteries. That’ll be the ticket. Huge batteries that can power a factory for hours or days until the wind starts blowing and the sun comes up.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  November 6, 2018

      Ah yes the old compartmentalized thinking conservative conundrum.

      The German government set itself the goal of reducing national greenhouse gas emissions until 2020 by 40 percent compared to 1990 levels.

      But a draft government report estimates that the country will only be able to reduce emissions by 32 percent. Officials had previously estimated a shortfall of 5 percent to 8 percent.

      The document blames “unexpected economic developments and unexpected population growth” for the failure to meet the target.

      “Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.” — Confucius,
      Tom H
      Germany on Wednesday announced it would not meet its 2020 climate protection goal.
      Griff
      Germany’s emissions are already down 32 %.

      As to the future?
      Already in progress
      https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/infrastructure/developing-european-energy-grid

      Reply
      • The Consultant

         /  November 6, 2018

        A European-wide energy grid?

        The Commission has developed an engagement tool to allow stakeholders to….

        Ooooo – an “engagement tool”. You can always trust the EU to supply hot air. So it’s all puffery aside from the actual work on developing intergrid connectons that has been going on across Europe for years anyway, especially since the end of the Cold War. Speaking of which…

        Germany’s emissions are already down 32 %.

        I love that graph. Germany got a 20% reduction after all the Socialist industry in East Germany collapsed.

        (Greenies and Lefties: Thank you for destroying communism President Reagan. Oh – and thank Right Wing Conservatives too!)

        The remaining 12% reduction has been painfully ecked out since 2000, but that’s a pretty sad result for all those years and the tens of billions of Euros poured into renewables. From 1043Mt to 907MT in 2009 – but that last is clearly more due to the GFC as it rises again. But they did get it back to 907Mt in 2016.

        All that investment. All those subsidies. All those massive increases in electricity prices – and basically for 5/8 of fuck all to date.

        But they’ve got targets!!! Like China and India.

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  November 6, 2018

          Might just have something to do with phasing out nuclear .
          After that little incident in japan… you know the one that has only cost $250,000,000,000 so far.
          But hay that doesn’t jive with your fanatical right wing ideology so you will ignore reality and spin your propaganda.

          Reply
          • The Consultant

             /  November 6, 2018

            Of course it’s got something to do with phasing out nuclear in Germany. The problem – which you don’t address – is that they had no other domestic baseload power generation source to replace it with.

            Well, except for coal.

            Just think how much less coal and gas Germany would have burned if they’d stuck with Solar+Wind+nuclear, or even built more nuclear.

            Oh – and the French show no signs that Fukushima has changed their minds on their nuclear scheme either. Good thing for Germany too: France can be their backup.

            Besides, after all the screaming settled down even the Japanese switched several of their reactors back on, because the MITI concluded that they couldn’t meet their Paris Treaty targets without nuclear energy, and about 20% of national consumption too!

            Maybe the Japanese are retreating back to earlier days when they were fanatical right wing ideologues?

            ROFLMAO.

            Reply
  8. The Consultant

     /  November 6, 2018

    I use Flick for power. They are usually quite reasonable, but my last two power bills have jumped up, with one over double the previous week ($100 for a week).

    Oh you ain’t seen nothing yet. The good news is that our economy is steadily growing towards German levels of wealth so that we can afford all this.

    Funny that German industrial electricity prices are so high, even as wind and solarPV per unit costs have fallen. It’s almost as if there are hidden costs built in to the system.

    I was amused by this note in the Australian Energy Council Report:

    The repeal of the carbon price [2014-15] has returned Australia to the lower end of the 18 surveyed countries, after two years amongst the more expensive countries.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  November 6, 2018

      There is .
      Strikingly yours ended right on the peak cost in 2014.
      You wouldn’t be lying with selected statistics deliberately now would you?
      Generation costs have continued to decline since this graph.
      How governments chose to tax industry is apart from the energy debate.

      Reply
  9. Zedd

     /  November 6, 2018

    Hemp biofuels & biogradable plastics !

    Cut the CRAP !!

    Reply
  10. Kitty Catkin

     /  November 6, 2018

    My last power bill was $56 for a MONTH with Contact.

    What on earth are you doing to run up one of $100 in a WEEK at this time of year ?

    Reply
    • I have been getting power through Flick. Their prices are based on market prices, so they vary but are generally cheaper.

      But when the wholesale power market went crazy over the last month prices shot up, so my weekly bill that was already high-ish doubled one week to the next.

      Due to Flick’s advice and expected volatility in pricing I have switched to a fixed price for six months. I have just got my latest bill, it is down to $25,which is about normal for me for this time of year.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  November 7, 2018

        Is that $25 for a week ? Mine was about half that, and many things are, of course, the same for one person as two or more, like lights.

        Reply
  11. The Consultant

     /  November 6, 2018

    There’s some interesting analysis that might explain why places like Germany, Denmark, California and South Australia are battling high electricity prices even as they install “low-cost” wind and SolarPV. The former declined in cost per watt by 50% between 2009 and 2017 alone, the latter by 75 percent. So what’s the problem?

    That’s from an economics paper published a few years ago now, The Market Value of Variable Renewables.

    The paper predicted that the economic value of wind on the European grid would decline 40 percent once it becomes 30 percent of supply and solar would drop by 50 percent when it got to just 15 percent. And the basic reason has to do with their inherent unreliability as they produce too much energy when not needed, and not enough when it is needed. Which in turn means that they have to have natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.

    All that backup costs, which feeds into electricity prices, and yet you cannot not have it. At present there’s a lot of sunk investment in baseload, fossil-fuel power plants, but once they’re gone it’s hydro and batteries – or nuclear (which Germany is shutting down). Batteries are not at industrial scale capabilities yet and won’t be for decades but even if they get there the costs will be fantastic. Try running the numbers some time on the cost of Musk’s giant new battery factory against the power storage capacity it produces each year against the power production/consumption of the USA. We’re talking trillions unless and until we get some revolutionary breakthrough on the physics and chemistry of batteries. Plenty of laboratory benchtop talk but very little in practical, industrial-scale machinery.

    Reply
  12. The Consultant

     /  November 6, 2018

    Same deal in California, as this Berkeley University economist explains:

    California has one of the country’s most aggressive renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The RPS requires each firm that sells electricity to end-users to procure an increasing fraction (33% by 2020, 50% by 2030) of the energy they sell from renewable sources.

    The policy, while undoubtedly effective at reducing the carbon intensity of the power sector, has also been quite disruptive to the economics of the sector. It is forcing a rapid (and early) replacement of conventional sources with renewable, but variable, generation sources such as solar and wind. Since 2010, about 80% of new capacity has come from renewable sources and it’s likely that much of that capacity would not have been built if not for the RPS.

    Which all sounds good for Greenies, you can also think about replacing old plant in any normal business, but:

    Largely due to the RPS, we have a surge of new, low marginal cost energy, flooding into a wholesale market that already had enough generic energy, thereby driving down wholesale prices. Since wholesale prices cannot support the cost of this much generation (new and old), increasingly the gap must be made up through rising margins between wholesale and retail prices.

    And yet, as with Europe:

    Unfortunately, despite the glut of electrical energy, we will likely still need the conventional capacity to handle the ramping and back-up needs created by the increased reliance on variable sources (wind and solar).

    It’s quite the paradox.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  November 7, 2018

      Umm Mate.
      I know its hard when you are a fanatical fan of fossil fuels .
      But we dont use fossil fuels for base load here in NZ .
      We use hydro.
      So fuck knows what you are obsessing about as it has no application to the topic of this post.

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  November 7, 2018

        Umm Mate…you’ve just had your ass handed to you….again. Now just get abusive, pack up your selective data/graphs and quit whilst you’re (well) behind.

        Reply
  13. High Flying Duck

     /  November 6, 2018

    From the law of unintended consequences file:

    I guess the birds won’t be emitting any more.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  November 7, 2018

      ROFL
      The daily fail for science?
      Admit it you are there for the tits bums and Celebrity tattle.
      https://phys.org/news/2018-11-farm-predator-effect-ecosystems.html

      her research, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, showed that wind farms replicated the role of the top predator in the food chain by keeping the raptors at bay.

      “They trigger changes to the balance of animals in an ecosystem as if they were top predators,” she said. “They are the ‘predators’ of raptors—not in the sense of killing them, but by reducing the presence of raptors in those areas.”

      Says it all really.
      Gotta believe any old nonsense you are fed even if the source is well known to be rubbish.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  November 7, 2018

        While you are rolling around thinking about your vast superiority, would you prefer I cite nature.com who have published the study:

        Wind farms are a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels for mitigating the effects of climate change, but they also have complex ecological consequences. In the biodiversity hotspot of the Western Ghats in India, we find that wind farms reduce the abundance and activity of predatory birds (for example, Buteo, Butastur and Elanus species), which consequently increases the density of lizards, Sarada superba. The cascading effects of wind turbines on lizards include changes in behaviour, physiology and morphology that reflect a combination of predator release and density-dependent competition. By adding an effective trophic level to the top of food webs, we find that wind farms have emerging impacts that are greatly underestimated. There is thus a strong need for an ecosystem-wide view when aligning green-energy goals with environment protection.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0707-z

        Reply
  14. High Flying Duck

     /  November 6, 2018

    Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  November 7, 2018

      The driver?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  November 7, 2018

        Probably not. Still need a computer to operate a driver.

        If you mean a human driver, if the human driver gets out of an electric car, is it still an electric car? If the answer is Yes, the driver is not part of an electric vehicle.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  November 7, 2018

          If you take the driver’s seat out of an electric car, is it still an electric car? If the answer is Yes, the seat is not part of an electric vehicle.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  November 7, 2018

            Rather early for you to be being so stupid already, robert?
            Not much sleep ? o_O

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              My question was too difficult for you to even try to answer, Gezza? Given that it’s almost identical to yours, I’m surprised you didn’t at least give it a go. You too, are up early. I got out of bed at 5:30. You must be, it’s obvious to me know, the down-ticker. I notice my comment collected one and your on-line.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              “You must be, it’s obvious to me now , the down-ticker. I notice my comment collected one and you’re on-line”

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              Hard to know. I often get downticks immeditately before someone suddenly starts posting. Just some wanker. I don’t worry about it. Sometimes I give him a pansy.

              The answer to your question is so simple. The seat is part of an electric vehicle. If the seat of an electric vehicle is taken out the vehicle is still and electric vehicle and the seat is still part of the electric vehicle it came out of. Your question is stupid, that’s why I didn’t bother answering. It’s the sort of question only a retarded person or a farkin idiot would ask.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              “Hard to know” if you’re the downticker?
              Have you watched “The Fight Club”, Gezza?

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              Huh?

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              Too early in the morning for you, Gezza? There’s no shame in popping back for a wee catch-up nap.

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              Strange things go on in your head robert.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              So you have seen “Fight Club”!

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              I’ve seen that strange things go on in your head.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              Gezza – I have a question for you; is it possible to down-tick the same comment twice?

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              I think so. We can test it.
              I’ll downtick your comment above.
              Then you see if you can downtick it too.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              Can one person down-tick the same comment more than once? I’m aiming to prove to you that I’m not the person who down-ticks your comments, however much you might believe I am.

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              Oh dont worry about it. I’m not bothered one way or the other. Give them a pansy.

            • robertguyton

               /  November 7, 2018

              I’m not a pansy-giver. The main character in “Fight Club” beat himself up and claimed other fighters had done so. I’m sensing something of that sort here.

            • Gezza

               /  November 7, 2018

              Could be right. Looks like they’ve just done it to me. Still doesn’t bother me. I reckon it’s probably some just some wanker. Most people who downtick me seem to be.

    • Griff.

       /  November 7, 2018

      Can you name one part of an electric car that can not be made with all renewable energy?
      There is no reason why you can not do it all with renewable energy from mining ore to polishing the finished product.
      Just because we do not yet does not mean we can not .

      It is really about conservatives and their irrational fears of the change .

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  November 7, 2018

        “It is really about conservatives and their irrational fears of the change .”
        QFT

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  November 7, 2018

          No, it’s about progressive political idiots who don’t know what they are doing.

          Reply
          • Griff.

             /  November 7, 2018

            They know Alan
            Because they are aware of what science says about our future if we dont move away from fossil fuel burning for energy.
            Before you link to Dr Roy.
            They also dont get their information from a whacko creationist fringe nutbars.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  November 7, 2018

              Most of them have absolutely no clue, Griff. They are simply relying on what they are told and know bugger all about anything.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  November 7, 2018

        So if “we can”, then why do we not? Aren’t disruptors like Musk supposed to be leading the revolution in this area?
        I would pick cost and unsuitability of alternative materials would be the answer.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  November 7, 2018

          so does History support your hypotheses ?

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  November 7, 2018

            The current complete absence of vehicles created and run without fossil fuel inputs supports it.
            We will need to move into the future for a period to determine whether history backs it up as well.

            Reply
    • Blazer

       /  November 7, 2018

      brake fluid.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  November 7, 2018

        Polyglycols and their ethers are certainly oil industry derivatives. Our political idiots in NZ have banned future oil production.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  November 7, 2018

          What a patently wrong claim, Alan.

          Reply
        • Griff.

           /  November 7, 2018

          Yes Alan ‘except the question was not what is made from oil .
          It was what needs oil to be made .
          Anything you make from oil be it plastics, lubricants etc you can synthesize directly from plant matter.
          Because that is what oil is made from..

          Reply
  1. Greens pushing to end oil and gas exploration — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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