Daily Review 29/08/2018

Written By: - Date published: 5:49 pm, August 29th, 2018 - 38 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

38 comments on “Daily Review 29/08/2018 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. joe90 1
    29 August 2018 at 5:56 pm

    If an economy this big can commit, so can we.

    On Tuesday afternoon, California state lawmakers passed a landmark bill, SB100, which would put the state’s electricity supply on track to be totally emissions-free by 2045. It passed 43-32.

    The bill would amend California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which currently requires half of all the state’s electricity to come from clean, renewable sources of energy by 2030. Regulators have already predicted the state will meet that goal 10 years early, by 2020.

    https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/08/california-lawmakers-just-voted-to-make-all-its-electricity-emissions-free-by-2045-sb-100/

    • Pat 1.1
      29 August 2018 at 6:12 pm

      “New Zealand has the third-highest rate of renewable energy as a portion of primary supply in the OECD, behind Norway and Iceland, with around 85 percent of electricity currently sourced from renewable energy. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said her government is committed to getting to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.”

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1803/S00081/govt-support-needed-to-hit-renewable-energy-target.htm

      our problem is not so much power generation….it is transport and agriculture, although we should be hastening towards 100% renewable power as it is low hanging fruit.

      • gsays 1.1.1
        29 August 2018 at 9:33 pm

        Aotearoa electricity supply makes me smile as a dilemma for greenies.

        Dams are not favoured by environmentalists and others.
        Hydroelectric is arguably the best form of renewable power, loved by environmentalists and others.

        • Pat 1.1.1.1
          30 August 2018 at 8:18 am

          That historical paradox has caused me to smile from time to time but there are other forms of renewable power generation albeit with some environmental impact as well.

        • Tricledrown 1.1.1.2
          30 August 2018 at 9:49 am

          Gsays dams cost to much not economically viable!
          The cost of Labour Steel and Cement plus the average lifespan of dams makes large dams uneconomic.

          • gsays 1.1.1.2.1
            30 August 2018 at 2:13 pm

            I understand globally, we have cheap electricity.
            This must be because of our hydro capacity.

            We make cement and steel, and I am sure we can find the labour.

            The alternatives are solar and wInd.
            Solar is dependent upon imported minerals etc and wInd is lots of moving parts. Anton Oliver wrote an essay a few years back saying that wInd farms are only viable because of the tax jiggery pokery.

            I suppose tidal is an option but not in snapper breeding grounds.

            Given the choice of land, I would go for a spot with a water flow, pop in a pelton wheel and Bob’s your uncle. No storage and a constant supply of electricity.

  2. adam 2
    29 August 2018 at 6:07 pm

    Venezuela, by the people, for the people. But to much oil for the US Empire to leave alone.

  3. Kat 3
    29 August 2018 at 6:09 pm

    Hosk is now moonlighting as a sports writer, he reckons the All Blacks may not be as good as they are made out to be with sporting insight that only Hosk can impart. Strange because a few days ago he reckoned they should be financially backed by the govt.

    • mary_a 3.1
      30 August 2018 at 4:07 pm

      @ Kat (3) … Hosking tries hard to put himself across as being intelligent and knowledgeable, when in fact he’s a pathetic dribbling source of the bleedin’ obvious … nothing!

  4. AsleepWhileWalking 4
    29 August 2018 at 6:15 pm

    “Third world swamp house” rented for $520/WK

    https://youtu.be/yfFaXzAAxoA

    • adam 4.1
      29 August 2018 at 6:37 pm

      You can’t tell me the landlord didn’t know the drainage was illegal. Solution – take the property from landlords who deliberately and wilfully put peoples health and wellbeing in jeopardy. This is just another example of asking taxpayers to cover the risk (long term health costs), so slumlords can make a quick buck.

      Or if we had a spine in this country, the landlord would be forced to live under that house in the rubbish and wet for the next 21 months. But as we all weak as piss, I’m guessing at most a wet bus ticket.

    • Macro 5.1
      29 August 2018 at 6:39 pm

      Surprise! surprise!

      Of course he only watches for “research”. 😉

      By the way you should have put a warning on that link Joe – the pic of a naked Jones nearly had me loosing my just eaten excellent dinner.

    • marty mars 5.2
      29 August 2018 at 8:45 pm

      that guy sheesh

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    29 August 2018 at 6:40 pm

    Electric car growth and greater fuel efficiency spark calls for change to fuel excise funding

    He said he envisaged a system where drivers paid the Government for the kilometres they drove in a month, in much the same way people paid their phone bills. And he said he wanted to start with electric vehicles.

    Mr Dwyer said this should happen as soon as possible, while electric vehicle uptake was relatively low and while those buying them were relatively affluent. He said it was not fair that poorer drivers of old cars were effectively subsidising richer drivers of electric vehicles.

    “If you drive a 10-year-old car, a 10-year-old Commodore, you’re paying a lot more than someone who drives a Toyota hybrid, a Prius, and if you’re driving a Tesla you’re not currently making a contribution at the point of use,” he said.

    This is how our system has worked out so far and it is, as he says, unfair.
    https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-modal/climatechange/electric-vehicles/

    Extending the Road User Charges (RUC) exemption on light vehicles until they make up two percent of the light vehicles fleet

    On 22 September 2016, the RUC exemption for light electric vehicles was extended until 31 December 2021.

    This will save the average electric vehicle driver approximately $600 per vehicle each year.

    Nice of you can afford to buy a new car every year. Not so good if you can’t.

    The poor should not be subsidising the rich.

    • Pat 6.1
      29 August 2018 at 7:17 pm

      or it could be viewed as an incentive to make that new vehicle electric rather than diesel or petrol

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        29 August 2018 at 7:33 pm

        That’s what it’s supposed to be but it shouldn’t have poor people subsidising rich people. The better option would be to go full RUC and a better public transport system that’s cheaper than cars so that people don’t need cars at all.

        • Pat 6.1.1.1
          29 August 2018 at 7:48 pm

          I seem to recall the Australian Greens opposed a move in the right direction because it didnt go far enough….how’d that work out?

          • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1
            29 August 2018 at 8:36 pm

            And I recall the NZ Greens supporting the ETS despite it not going far enough.

            So, how’d that work out?

            And you’ll note that we already have an exemption for electric cars which the Greens support. How’s it working so far? Is it actually encouraging people to buy electric cars? Has it helped reduce congestion? Can it reduce congestion?

            Or is it that you’re trying to apply a false equivalence to distract from the injustice of the poor subsidising the rich?

            • Macro 6.1.1.1.1.1
              29 August 2018 at 9:30 pm

              Draco today in the local supermarket car park – there is only one here – I counted 5 Leafs, and 6 Hybrids in a town of 7500. A couple of years ago there would have been none. The local library has a fast charging point and I have several friends who have recently changed from petrol powered to electric. A Leaf with reasonable battery life left can be had for around the cost of a comparable petrol car. They are all one needs for local running. And yes we have now a “bus” service in our town but its not suitable for every journey one needs to make. Walking and cycling are not always options available to everyone, especially in a town built on an old fault line (ie very steep inclines).

            • Macro 6.1.1.1.1.2
              29 August 2018 at 9:47 pm

              BTW having talked to Jeanette F on this very subject of the ETS – I can tell you that the ETS was presented to the Green’s as a fait accompli – The Green’s only found out about it when she happened to see the draft bill on Helen Clark’s desk! They either supported it knowing full well that the incoming Nats would trash it, or there was nothing – after almost 8 years of supporting a govt who had said they were going to make NZ carbon neutral by 2040.

            • Pat 6.1.1.1.1.3
              30 August 2018 at 8:23 am

              Is it actually encouraging people to buy electric cars?…well I guess neither of us know a definitive answer to that but I will say it is a major factor in my decision to purchase one….and I aint rich, far from it.

              As to false equivalence..is it? or is it indicative of real world outcomes?

              • mac1 …
                30 August 2018 at 10:11 am

                Taxation on fuel was not a factor for us to buy a Leaf. The cost of fuel was a factor as we can top up our car from our solar panels. So was ‘the planet’ with all those ecological reasons. The principal factor was to lower our use of fossil fuels.

                At the moment my walking buddies all twit me for avoiding taxes. There are 18 EVs in this region of 45000 people, and two charging points.

                The local bus service is very limited. The terrain is suitable for walking and cycling. I have had an electric bike for a decade. Our region has the oldest population in the country, so this form of transport is less ideal or used.

                I expect to have to pay road user charges in the future but hopefully commensurate with low friction tyres, (does that make a difference to damaging effects on the roads?), and a sedately driven and small car.

                If I travel a distance equivalent to that costing $600 in prospective road user charges, then the cost of fuel would rise from being a fifth at the moment to buy the same distance in petrol, ie 30c a litre equivalent as my Leaf does 7.2 km per 3% of battery and that is nearly equivalent to 1kw/h.

                $600 on a 12000 km annual basis would mean that we would pay 5c a kilometre on top of the 4c for electric power per kilometre, effectively more than doubling the fuel cost but still cheaper than petrol. At the moment our fuel bill for 12000 km at 30c per kw/h is $500 pa. With RUC at $600 it goes to $1100 pa compared with an equivalent petrol car of $2200 for 12000km at 12 km/l and fuel at $2.20 per litre.

                There are other health and environmental benefits to electric cars to throw into the debate. The imported fuel bill goes down, the CO2 emissions go down, smell and noise go down, toxic gas production goes down, the cost of transporting fuel goes down. What is the monetary value of that?

                • Pat …
                  30 August 2018 at 10:21 am

                  RUC at $60 per 1000km and a monthly average use of 1300km means without RUC an (used import) electric vehicle pays for itself with vastly reduced fuel costs….never mind the environmental impacts.

                  • mac1 …
                    30 August 2018 at 11:15 am

                    A $20,000 car at $1700 per year fuel savings means a car pays for itself in 11 years. At $1100 pa (paying RUC) is 18 years. A replacement battery at 200,000 kms (10 years motoring with our car) costs $8000. Another $800 per annum. Fuel costs now $1900 pa, saving $300 pa.

                    Using our surplus roof generated solar power helps. But generating that, too, has a cost which eight years of use will pay for.

                    Should battery replacement be factored in to the discussion, as there are variable like that all through the discussion? EVs have far fewer moving parts, so maintenance is much less. The EV might well depreciate more slowly as the battery will always keep the value higher at the lower end.

                    For me, the environmental impacts being reduced is more important. Not paying RUC does help to help justify the EV choice, now that I am aware of them which I did not consider when purchasing the EV in the first place.

                    • Pat …
                      30 August 2018 at 12:56 pm

                      At 1300 (+) k per month (and no public transport option) a small/med petrol vehicle will use approx $300 fuel a month.

                      There are numerous 1st gen Leafs available for 12K with low mileage and a 4 year term loan will cost slightly over $300 per month to service. Charging costs are negligible and often available free…and that doesnt include the reduced maintenance factor.

                      The main limitation is range but if that is not an issue anyone purchasing a vehicle would be better served to go electric….especially those financially strapped, so the argument the rich are being subsidised by the poor does not need to be the reality for if you can afford a vehicle at all the cheapest option is electric…especially if there is no RUC to consider.

                    • Macro …
                      30 August 2018 at 4:40 pm

                      @ mac1 and Pat
                      Thank you both for your insightful discussion here on the ownership and use of an EV. It is very helpful for others to see that such vehicles are not too scary and can be a really positive investment and practical solution for a lot of folk.
                      As I have to travel up to Auckland fairly regularly, and the bus service is ok, but infrequent, and the range is just over the limit for a Leaf, I have instead a hybrid. On buying the hybrid overnight I cut my emissions by half – from around 9L/100km to 4.5L/100. I have a small car for local running, but as soon as I can, I shall be replacing it with a Leaf. I can use my Hybrid as an EV, but only for very short distances down the hill to the supermarket – but coming up the hill means the motor has to kick in- in steepness in places it rivals Baldwin Street. 🙂
                      The other day I found myself in serious breach of the 10th Commandment. One of my friends arrived in a black Tesla. I’ve never really coveted my neighbours oxen or donkey before.

  7. Incognito 7
    29 August 2018 at 8:00 pm

    But competitive behaviour has a very long precedent in terms of accumulating wealth in any of its forms (material or otherwise).

    An insightful article: https://theconversation.com/the-ruthless-pursuit-of-online-likes-gives-you-nothing-100862

  8. marty mars 8
    29 August 2018 at 8:49 pm

    I never liked musk – he’s a wanker and NOT going to save the world or even himself.

    “Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy”, later tweeting: “Bet ya a signed dollar it’s true.” He deleted both tweets soon after.

    He has never presented any evidence for the allegation nor claimed to have any. He apologised for the remark last month after Unsworth threatened to sue, Tesla shares dived and the company’s investors issued an open letter demanding Musk apologise.

    Musk was responding to another critic on Twitter on Tuesday night when he appeared to reaffirm the accusation. “You don’t think it’s strange [Unsworth] hasn’t sued me? He was offered free legal services,” he wrote.

    “Did you investigate at all? I’m guessing answer is no. Why?” he wrote in subsequent tweets that are still online.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/29/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-pedo-claims-against-uk-cave-diver

  9. marty mars 9
    29 August 2018 at 10:02 pm

    t.rump – this is how you start a war, civil or otherwise, 101.

    “US President Donald Trump has warned that his policies will be “violently” overturned if the Democrats win November’s mid-term elections.

    He told Evangelical leaders that the vote was a “referendum” on freedom of speech and religion, and that these were threatened by “violent people”.

    He appealed to conservative Christian groups for help, saying they were one vote away from “losing everything”. ”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45340275

    • joe90 9.1
      29 August 2018 at 10:48 pm

      The prick doesn’t even bother hiding it.

      When we released the first edition of this report in October 2017, the case that President Trump had obstructed justice was still in its relatively early stages. Even then, we concluded that there was substantial evidence that the president may have obstructed justice.

      […]

      Ten months later, as we release the updated second edition of the report, it has become apparent that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is much more extensive than we knew. To take only a few examples,…

      https://www.brookings.edu/research/presidential-obstruction-of-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump-2nd-edition/

    • millsy 9.2
      30 August 2018 at 2:03 am

      I firmly believe that the US is heading for another civil war, with tensions built up going back to civil rights and Veitnam. Previous presidents, even Bush II have managed to keep things under control, but Trump seems to want to stoke up tension and disharmony.

  10. Tricledrown 10
    30 August 2018 at 9:52 am

    Millsy Trump is a desperate cornered seriously wounded beast if he looses the Midterms he will face impeachment.

  11. Chris T 11
    30 August 2018 at 4:56 pm

    Weird hour of shocks

    Manning officially barred from Aus and Ardern dumps another minister