Here’s an idea! Clean energy…

56 comments on “Here’s an idea! Clean energy… ”

• Comments are now closed

1. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1

   4 February 2014 at 2:52 pm

   Good on the Greens – Clean energy and forward-looking job creation is where the focus needs to be.

   Welcome relief to read something positive, thanks Karol
2. grumpy 2

   4 February 2014 at 3:38 pm

   Would be good to know what they mean by “green energy”.
   • karol 2.1

     4 February 2014 at 3:53 pm

     Green Party favours renewables like geothermal, wind, wave, tidal and solar energy etc. All in their policies.
     • Bob 2.1.1

       4 February 2014 at 4:52 pm

       How effective are these currently at powering motor vehicles?
       Obviously these are great initiatives, and the direction we should be moving both for the enviroment and for lower cost energy moving forward, but how does shutting down the production of oil prior to a suitable replacement being available help the situation?
       Wouldn’t this just drive transportation costs through the roof, causing virtually everything in our current economy to become exponentially more expensive? Wouldn’t this hurt people who already have the least expendable income the most?
       • karol 2.1.1.1

         4 February 2014 at 4:58 pm

         We already generate more than 50% of NZ’s energy electricity supply from hydro schemes.

         I don’t think anyone’s talking about going cold oil turkey. But it takes time to find new oil sources and get them on stream, ​the time and resources would be better spent on developing renewables – like China is doing in a big way.

         We should also be moving to be becoming less car dendent. Apparently there are some very good technologies being developed for electricity run public/mass transport. Why did we ever get rid of trams?

         Rail electrification is slowly developing in Auckland, etc.
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1

           4 February 2014 at 5:04 pm

           Why did we ever get rid of trams?

           All the indications that I’ve seen is so that the fossil fuel and car companies could make massive profits.
           • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1

             4 February 2014 at 5:50 pm

             I suspect it’s to do with large fixed infrastructure that requires installation and maintenance, rather than just the trolley itself. Efficiency vs adaptability in costs (i.e. profit-taking by cutting costs). Basically, between that and simple fashion at the time (maybe trolleys were seen as “old” tech), a lot of councils made foolish decisions.

             Edit: haha – got moderated by the Scunthorpe Dilemma
             • Draco T Bastard …

               4 February 2014 at 10:34 pm

               I suspect it’s to do with large fixed infrastructure that requires installation and maintenance, rather than just the trolley itself.

               Possibly. The large infrastructure and maintenance looks nasty on the rates bill and so the councils dumped the expense directly on the people and the people didn’t realise that the costs went up more because it was individualised rather than collective.
           • mikesh 2.1.1.1.1.2

             5 February 2014 at 8:21 am

             In Wellington trams used to run in the middle of the road which meant that whenever they had to stop to to take on or let off passengers cars following behind also had to stop. Trolley buses seem better since the can pull into the kerb.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2

         4 February 2014 at 5:02 pm

         How effective are these currently at powering motor vehicles?

         As cars are massively inefficient they’re obviously not part of a green economy.

         but how does shutting down the production of oil prior to a suitable replacement being available help the situation?

         We have the replacement but our government isn’t putting it in place instead they’re looking at digging up even more of the fossil fuels that will, most likely, bring about an extinction level event.

         Wouldn’t this just drive transportation costs through the roof

         Nope, make it massively cheaper. Trains running on electricity are cheaper to run than running them on diesel and the same will be true of buses. Throw in the added efficiency of mass transit and we’re on to a winner.

         Wouldn’t this hurt people who already have the least expendable income the most?

         No, see above.
         • Bob 2.1.1.2.1

           4 February 2014 at 5:16 pm

           Thanks Draco, but how long is it going to take, and how expensive would it be to run electric trains to every suburb in every town/city in the country?
           In the mean time, cars and trucks are crucial for personal and commercial transportation, while I agree that this is a much better solution to our current and future transportation issues, it would be very short sighted to think that we can switch to an entirely electric transportation system before current global oil prices become unaffordable (not to mention the oil based products required to produce an electric transportation network).
           Oil drilling is not ideal, but if the royalties from oil production in NZ was pumped directly into producing an electric transit system to reduce our reliance on oil in the medium to long term, that is a solution that I would vote for.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2.1.1

             4 February 2014 at 5:37 pm

             Why would we be running trains to every suburb in every town/city in the country? Doing that would be really stupid. Each suburb would be individually assessed and then either have a train and/or* bus service implemented.

             * Buses would feed to the train stations if there’s a train there but otherwise just a bus service.

             As for how long it would take? I figure NZ could do it in 10 years to get the basics done but it would take longer to get it fully rolled out. If we dropped that worthless free-market capitalist BS about someone needing to make a profit from it it could be done faster and cheaper.

             Oil drilling is not ideal, but if the royalties from oil production in NZ was pumped directly into producing an electric transit system to reduce our reliance on oil in the medium to long term, that is a solution that I would vote for.

             If we were going to do that then we’d be better off keeping the oil/gas ourselves rather than selling it and using it directly in the transition. After all, money isn’t a resource and is thus useless whereas oil/gas are. Our countries sovereign ability to create money and to levy taxes ensure that we have enough to do whatever we want with our own resources.
             • srylands …

               5 February 2014 at 12:38 pm

               “Our countries sovereign ability to create money ….”

               God not that again.
               • KJT …

                 5 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

                 Prefer that we continue to donate 20 cents in every dollar to Australian banks do you? Srylands.

                 At this rate banks will end up with a bigger share of GDP than the Government.
           • Flip 2.1.1.2.1.2

             5 February 2014 at 8:40 am

             “…it would be very short sighted to think that we can switch to an entirely electric transportation system before current global oil prices become unaffordable (not to mention the oil based products required to produce an electric transportation network).”

             I cannot help think that we should have been doing the switch earlier. It may be that an entirely electric transport system is not feasible but the less of fossil fuel dependency we have the better NZ will do long term simply because fossil fuels are finite. The effects on the climate is another reason. In fact the excuses to use fossil fuels have run out.

             The current road building program is short sighted.

             Nice if we had a plan for energy consumption and generation.
             • KJT …

               5 February 2014 at 3:27 pm

               There are several good reasons for reducing energy use as soon as possible.

               One. Because we have to reduce Green house gases, worldwide.
               Someone has to start. .

               Two is that changing energy supplies and the infrastructure required will be much more difficult and expensive as oil supplies run low. Oil is used in the manufacture of a great many of the things we will require. Substituting for oil in those cases makes it more difficult. Having to pay to use oil, while we also try and pay for quickly making changes, that have been forced on us, will be even harder.

               Three. The advantages of being one of the first to develop the necessary technology.

               Four. Energy costs can only rise. The USA has run out of countries to invade to force down oil prices. We can avoid being part of the military grab for oil.

               But. We cannot just duplicate past capabilities with renewable electricity as a substitute for oil.

               For example. Most of the energy used in a cars lifetime is in construction, not running.
               Changing all our vehicle fleet to Prius’s, which duplicate the capabilities of petrol cars, would not save energy overall, even if we could do it.
               Changing a large proportion to vehicles. Which can be at least 10 time lighter does.

               A bicycle can be glued together from timber and weigh 8 kilos. A motorcycle, because of the requirement for much greater speed, needs sophisticated materials and design and weighs more than 20 times as much.

               We need to change out thinking about building design and many other energy uses. Houses designed for passive warming and cooling are well within today’s technology, and cost effective.

               Another example. Of many. Solar panels are expensive, imported, and short lived . Direct solar water heating can be built and maintained by any handy person.
           • Francis 2.1.1.2.1.3

             5 February 2014 at 11:02 pm

             Trains can already take over much of the inter-city commercial (and even a degree of passenger) transportation.

             Though most railway lines would require the use of Diesel (with the exception of the North Island Main Trunk Line from Hamilton to Palmerston North), a single train uses up far less resources than it would take to transport the same amount of resources via truck. Also, it wouldn’t be too difficult to complete the electrification of the entire rail network 🙂

             What’s stopping this from happening is almost entirely Government decisions and Trucking Lobbies. Some of you may even remember a time when trucks were prohibited from travelling where they could have used rail transport. Maybe it’s time to bring back a similar policy…
         • KJT 2.1.1.2.2

           4 February 2014 at 9:58 pm

           Actually. As most private cars do less than 50km a day at speeds below 50km/hr, powering them with electricity is easy, cost efficient and doable.

           Just have to let go of the idea that they have to do 400k at 100km/hr in the weekends.

           Think golf carts, rather than imitating our present cars. Make them here from vege based composites. (Export the technology. We are already world leaders in composites) Ban petrol cars from city centres to make them pedestrian and cycle friendly.

           Then there is attaching them too each other, to make trains, for journeys to the city centre.
           • weka 2.1.1.2.2.1

             4 February 2014 at 10:15 pm

             “As most private cars do less than 50km a day at speeds below 50km/hr, powering them with electricity is easy, cost efficient and doable.”

             How much is ‘most’? 95%? 65%? I support what you are saying but start to feel nervous when people make generic statements like that. But then I live in the rural South Island, where the picture looks a bit different. Lots of people drive fair distances to and from work in areas with no public transport. There are solutions to that too, just not discussed so much because of the population concentration in cities.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2.2.2

             4 February 2014 at 10:29 pm

             As most private cars do less than 50km a day at speeds below 50km/hr, powering them with electricity is easy, cost efficient and doable.

             Nope, still inefficient. Don’t forget all the land lost to roads and car parks. Nor the fact that cars spend 96% of their time doing nothing at all which means to say that all those resources used to make them is an almost total waste of resources – in a world of scarce resources.

             Simpler and more efficient to use trains and buses.
             • KJT …

               5 February 2014 at 8:41 am

               Weka. About 80 odd percent of car use, from the NZTA.
               I don’t see public only transport as that workable for smaller towns and rural areas.

               A bus carrying three people is a lot less efficient than a golf cart.

               A lot of truck journeys are also short and at low speed. Trucking companies use a depot in each town for long haul trucks and then others for local deliveries.
               A model which works the same, but with rail and ships for the long haul is both cheaper and more energy efficient.

               Same for intercity transport of people. Hire your golf cart at the station.

               On the supply side, New Zealand is lucky to have ample potential sources of renewable energy. 95% renewable for stationary energy and 80% renewable for transport is not an impossible goal. 90% renewable for stationary power by 2020.

               It is only the political will that is lacking.

               Of course we have to reduce the demand side as well. But it is surprising how much difference a lot of small power saving measures added together, can achieve, though. (Like the Greens insulation program)

               For those who do not believe that AGW is a fact, saving over a billion, and rising ever more steeply as the costs of extraction rise, a year, in imported oil has still got to be good.
               • KJT …

                 5 February 2014 at 8:49 am

                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand

                 “Renewable electricity in New Zealand is primarily from hydropower. In 2011, 77% of the electricity generated in New Zealand came from renewable sources, a ratio that has been falling for decades while load growth has been met primarily by natural gas-fired power stations. In September 2007, former Prime Minister Helen Clark announced a national target of 90 percent renewable electricity by 2025, with wind energy to make up much of that increase”
               • Colonial Viper …

                 5 February 2014 at 10:24 am

                 Weka. About 80 odd percent of car use, from the NZTA.
                 I don’t see public only transport as that workable for smaller towns and rural areas.

                 A bus carrying three people is a lot less efficient than a golf cart.

                 Well let’s examine the use of the word “efficient” there.

                 Having excellent public transport and enabling two out of three families to get rid of their car would be hugely efficient, from a community costs point of view, perhaps replaced with a communal rental car system which could be shared between half a dozen households when a personal vehicle was truly required.

                 Yes many areas of NZ are very low pop. density so much less practical there.

                 But in towns of 25,000 or more – why not?
               • weka …

                 5 February 2014 at 11:06 am

                 Agree with much of that KJT. One of the biggest obstacles I can see is how people use their cars for recreation. People drive short and long distances for this. Would be interested to know how this has been solved in other places. Much of it is about a change in expectations and what we perceive as rights. When oil gets very expensive that will change naturally, but in the meantime? Building good public transport systems, and increasing cycling in population dense areas seems relatively straightforward (given the political will). The other stuff is a bit more tricky I think.

                 edit: just seen Max’s comment below about holidays. Case in point 😉
             • MaxFletcher …

               5 February 2014 at 10:11 am

               “Simpler and more efficient to use trains and buses.”

               In some instances. Do you have children, Draco? I do. I have 3 children, all under 6.
               To go up the coast for a holiday requires all the organisation of a military drill. The amount of stuff we have to take, keeping the children in line and getting to our destination would be a nightmare on public transport.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 5 February 2014 at 10:20 am

                 True, personal vehicular transport is one of the quite convenient facilities of a high energy civilisation (while those conditions last). However, let’s remember that families in the 1890’s-1940’s relied on public transport like trains and buses for their holidays.

                 And the 5% of the year you are happen to be tripping away on holiday is not quite sufficient to justify a vast NZ hundred billion dollar personal vehicle infrastructure.
                 • MaxFletcher …

                   5 February 2014 at 10:35 am

                   “And the 5% of the year you are happen to be tripping away on holiday is not quite sufficient to justify a vast NZ hundred billion dollar personal vehicle infrastructure.”

                   While that may be true without a personal vehicle getting my kids to their various appointments (doctors/play group/etc) would be a disaster.
                   • karol …

                     5 February 2014 at 10:41 am

                     The plan isn’t to do away with personal vehicles entirely, but to limit their use. And personal vehicles mostly don’t need to be as powerful or fast as they are now – hence golf cart style vehicles.

                     There are also possibilities of neighbourhood vehicle sharing.

                     And it was common in the early 20th century for family holidays to be taken by bus – earlier by horse bus.
                   • greywarbler …

                     5 February 2014 at 11:44 am

                     MaxFletcher
                     Clever people can be flexible and resourceful. You will work out what appointments are most important and while now use the transport that a middle class family can afford, but later stay closer to home and find training for your children for sports, arts, tutoring nearer home. Families in a street might get together for dance, music, cricket practice, more will be done on school grounds, if the private providers are agreeable, and so on. What is now, will not continue, and we will manage it, I hope, and not lose too much.
                   • weka …

                     5 February 2014 at 11:49 am

                     That’s a very good point. How much of our current lifestyles and expectations are a result of freely available cars? It’s not that long ago that we didn’t have that. When was the change with the Japanese imports (late 80s?)? Before that not every household had a car, certainly not two cars.

                     The potential for relocalising around neighbourhoods is huge. The barriers are cultural and attitudinal more than structural IMO.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 February 2014 at 12:19 pm

                     One thing you are pointing to is how unworkable metropolitan areas like Greater Wellington or Auckland are as currently set up.

                     Without massive amounts of fossil fuels (maybe a million litres a day) used in personal transport, they grind to a halt.
       • joe90 2.1.1.3

         4 February 2014 at 5:28 pm

         How effective are these currently at powering motor vehicles

         The Tesla site calculator – a large sedan, petrol at $2/L = $3,636 v electricity at 30c/kwh = $849 over 16000km.

         edit. allowed for a US gallon = 4L

         http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#savings
3. aerobubble 3

   4 February 2014 at 3:48 pm

   Taxpayer built hydro dams so that a unethical researcher could declare that the very same people who paid taxes, who paid the debt for the hydro dams, who were paying the electricity bills werent paying enough. This is what they do to green investment, they ignore it, they divorce people from their history, their consent for clean energy, and then they make the outrageous claim (in order to back their political masters) that we haven’t been paying enough for electricity.

   How can anyone have any trust in politics when unethical research declares the people who paid for assets, by other means (taxes), weren’t paying enough. This with the back drop of out government
   selling these assets, who need to undermine that investment, whose ideology doesn’t believe in society. If the private market doesn’t account for it on its books its has no value to these politicians, and that means we might as all be slaves for all we’re worth.
4. Tamati 4

   4 February 2014 at 4:01 pm

   I wonder if any Labour MP’s will turn up?
5. natwest 5

   4 February 2014 at 5:32 pm

   Karol, may I commend you on that politically inspired & beautifully articulated piece of journalist crap!

   I have come to the conclusion after reading that, that the left (Labour & Greens) are nothing more than ideologically deranged.

   To rejoice & snigger at something that economically could bring significant wealth, both in terms of jobs and revenue to NZ Inc, is pathetic, ignorant and rather droll.

   As for “green” technology – really, it’s failed abysmally globaly – particularly in Europe and the UK, where it has proven to be inefficient and exteremly costly.

   As for that jumped up little green prat Gareth Hughes – if he preached the value of his convictions, he would be living in a cave, but no, he enjoys all the benefits oil provides, cars, air travel, the comforts of technology etc. etc. Hypocrite of the highest order.

   And lastly, the Hikoi, well what would you expect – Northland Maori don’t want progress it could mean jobs – which means work – hell no, more welfare thanks.

   Karol, I think the answer is more welfare, and you are just the party to deliver it.
   • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 5.1

     4 February 2014 at 5:38 pm

     Wow Karol is a ‘party’ now?
     When did you become a ‘party’ Karol?
     I must have missed the announcement :\
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     4 February 2014 at 5:45 pm

     To rejoice & snigger at something that economically could bring significant wealth, both in terms of jobs and revenue to NZ Inc

     Except that it wouldn’t do either of those.

     As for “green” technology – really, it’s failed abysmally globaly

     BS. Go read The Entrepreneurial State and you might actually learn why these things are failing. HINT: It’s got nothing to do with the actual technology.

     As for that jumped up little green prat Gareth Hughes – if he preached the value of his convictions, he would be living in a cave, but no, he enjoys all the benefits oil provides, cars, air travel, the comforts of technology etc. etc. Hypocrite of the highest order.

     And that’s even more BS – we don’t need oil to provide all those things.

     And lastly, the Hikoi, well what would you expect – Northland Maori don’t want progress it could mean jobs – which means work – hell no, more welfare thanks.

     And the racism typical of the RWNJ comes out.
   • freedom 5.3

     4 February 2014 at 7:56 pm

     “something that economically could bring significant wealth, both in terms of jobs and revenue to NZ Inc”
     natwest, you poor kool-aid raddled misanthrope

     Let’s start with jobs eh? If there are to be all these jobs, where are the training programmes?
     and why are the international trade pages full of ads looking for oil workers to move to NZ?

     As for the money hunny, do you understand what 5% of any declared profit means? It means they decide what is profit. 5% of turnover and you may find a few people more agreeable to the wholesale annihilation of our finite resources but 5% of a multinational’s declared profit is like asking a grumpy four year old if they want to give their little sister the chocolate bar or the bowl of cold porridge.

     Sorry if you feel insulted, (do molluscs get insults?) but your comments above are so packed full of cliched propaganda I could not see any point in being polite. There is not one factual statement in anything you wrote.

     Has it ever occured to you that the reason green technology has, in your opinion, failed, is that the petrochemical industry does not like competition? To ignore the crass and consistent efforts of the petrochemical industry in selectively suppressing green technology is only exposing your own ignorance.

     I am reminded of a series of interviews done with the heads of the major car companies back in 1997/8. I apologise for forgetting who the group making the documentary was. The bigwigs were being independantly interviewed, not knowing the others were also being interviewed. When the discussion turned to alternative energies they all answered with the exact same timeframe of ten to twelve years in the future would be the earliest that their company would be releasing what they considered to be the first real steps towards alternative energy automobiles. We are still waiting truth be told, but the past five years have certainly seen some amazing product releases eerily consistent with that statement.

     If you are holding out for petrochemical companies to offer the economy sustainable future growth, I do not recommend you hold your breath.
     • freedom 5.3.1

       4 February 2014 at 8:36 pm

       I am annoyed with myself for two comments above and would like to retract them.

       They are both the product of a particularly shitty afternoon in the real world, where I was repeatedly being exposed to some vile mindsets for whom the concept of generosity and sharing were seen as biotoxins that could wipe out entire ecosystems.

       “you poor kool-aid raddled misanthrope ” was definitely a by-product
       and so was “(do molluscs get insults?) ”

       The thing is natwest, it was the similarity of spirit evoked by your words, which momentarily mirrored the societal ignorance experienced earlier in my day and I unfortunately succumb to temptation and vented via the unproductive abuse of a stranger.

       As many know, sometimes the net is too easy a place to say what is on your mind, and we do on occasion neglect the basics of simple decent behaviour. As far as abuse goes it was incredibly tame, but it is something I feel I should acknowledge as wrong and unnecessary in this exchange.

       What you wrote natwest, is still unmitigated horse manure, but i had no right to insult you, when it is what you stand for that i object to.
   • framu 5.4

     5 February 2014 at 1:04 pm

     “he would be living in a cave”

     i love how certain idiots confirm they now SFA about green policy when they think theyve made a absolutely rock solid put down

     well done natwest… sorry… racist
6. Saarbo 6

   4 February 2014 at 5:38 pm

   Hilarious listening to Anadarko spokesperson stating on RNZ that the “drilling off Taranaki proved that exploratory drilling is safe as there were no incidents”

   Well, unlikely to be oil spill incidents when there is NO OIL.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     4 February 2014 at 5:46 pm

     +1
7. Yossarian 7

   4 February 2014 at 8:06 pm

   Memo To The Newly Elected Leader of The Karol Party.
   Most would agree it’s an admirable aspiration to have as much renewable energy sources as possible. Whether this be from wind, solar, wave, hydro & to try to invest in technologies that in the future will bring further non fossil fuel sources online.
   Unfortunately we have to make up the shortfall up with carbon based fuel sources until the above is feasible. The question then is to source these carbon sources as environmentally friendly as possible and turning away from inshore drilling avenues, and the other short term carbon options like fracking & trying to extract Oil from Paula Benetts Hair.
   So the reality for Green Energy at this point is time is what is feasible Green wise and how do we make up the shortfall?
   I note that Chairman Karol says/quotes over 50 per cent of NZs power currently comes from Hydro sources. I wonder if Your party could give me a breakdown of what is the current total of all “Renewable Energy Sources” and what percentage is left to the unfortunate use yet at this point in time needed use of Carbon Based fuel sources?
   I would be rather interested in what the rest of Party Karol stands for yet have yet to see any other policies and have missed any mention of how Party Karol is doing in the Polls? or could you provide me with any literature/policies/manifesto for Party Karol, so I can make my mind up if your a serious Party or just a “A One Person Band”? Thank you….yours a possible voter.
   Ps: is membership free or do I have to pay a subscription?
   • karol 7.1

     4 February 2014 at 8:14 pm

     Thanks for the questions, Yossarian, but you could probably as easily find all the answers with a little online searching as I could.

     I’m thinking of turning down the party offer, and taking up natwest’s other offer of me being a journalist. Wonder how much shi is paying?
   • mikesh 7.2

     5 February 2014 at 8:49 am

     “I note that Chairman Karol says/quotes over 50 per cent of NZs power currently comes from Hydro sources.”

     I think karol said that 50% of NZ’s electricity came from renewable sources, not its energy. The last time I checked (admittedly this was a few years ago) 65% came from hydro electric, 10% from geothermal and wind, and 25% from the burning of coal or gas.
8. Yossarian 8

   4 February 2014 at 8:40 pm

   Thank you Chairman Karol on your swift response.

   I must say, I am not overly wrapped at having to source stuff from the internet to my questions, I posed to Your Party. Oh Well.

   Good luck in your dual career at Nat Prats Bank Inc as a “Journalist”.
   I hope you are the sort of journalist that researches properly and doesnt rely on the “Internet” & produces fair and balanced articles for all?

   As for the price of “Shi”.. Looking at the current values on the International Shi Markets its approx what you wish it to be, besides I thought you would not be overly bothered at price of journalistic droppings, as it is a “Renewable Source.”…Every little helps in our Energy Needs!
   Ps: I take it is a no on free membership of The Karol Party then? bummer!
   • mickysavage 8.1

     4 February 2014 at 8:48 pm

     Que?
     • karol 8.1.1

       4 February 2014 at 9:10 pm

       +1 – but a joke can go on for twoo long. i’m neither a party person nor a journalist.

       But this:

       I wonder if Your party could give me a breakdown of what is the current total of all “Renewable Energy Sources” and what percentage is left to the unfortunate use yet at this point in time needed use of Carbon Based fuel sources?

       I was just pointing out anyone can search for such info. without too much effort.

       Wikipedia has a graph from the Minsitry of Economic Development (2010)

       Ah.. Correction to the comment I made above – my link shows 50% of NZ’s electricity supply comes from hydro.

       Oil and gas make up the biggest part of our energy supply with geothermal coming a close third.

       38% of our energy supply from renewables. But part of becoming less oil dependent is using less private transport, etc.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1

         4 February 2014 at 10:51 pm

         Most of our electricity supply comes from renewable generation but once you take into account transport it flips the other way.
9. Jenny 9

   5 February 2014 at 8:02 am

   Oops on closer reading Huntly may still be operating.
   • Jenny 9.1

     5 February 2014 at 8:18 am

     Further investigation seems to suggest that Huntly too, could be out of action, or a least just idling. This is due to restrictions on Huntly operating in summer hot weather conditions, (as currently being experienced), to protect the Waikato from overheated cooling water discharges.

     Relatively complex consent requirements, among other things, limit the fully mixed temperature downstream of the station to no more than an increase of 2oC and no more than 25oC absolute.
     Historically these requirements have constrained the station’s capacity to generate to varying
     degrees depending on prevailing ambient temperature, cloud cover and river flows particularly in
     the December to April period (i.e. the warmest months of the year).
     Historically, river heating limits have constrained the operation of the Huntly (1‐4) power station
     during some periods during the summer months – i.e. when the river temperature is at its highest.

     http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/water/freshwater/supporting-papers/evaluation-potential-electricity-sector-outcomes-from-revised-minimum-flow-regimes-selected-rivers.pdf
     • Jenny 9.1.1

       5 February 2014 at 1:47 pm

       The aspirational ideal of a Clean Green New Zealand comes one step closer to matching the reality.

       For the first time in the modern history of the world. The first ever, 1st world industrialised nation to have all its electricity supplied by renewables. Albeit by accident. And hardly being noticed.

       Let us hope there are many more moments like this, until our whole grid is powered by renewables 24/7 365.

       It can be done.

       No more excuses
10. phil 10

    5 February 2014 at 8:08 am

    I laughed at the Andarko spokesman stating they had shown ‘exploratory oil drilling is safe’. There was no oil! Who writes this PR bs?
    • Matthew 10.1

      6 February 2014 at 10:01 pm

      Wasn’t it “no commercially viable quantities” as opposed to does not exist?

      i.e. there was oil but it’s not comercially viable to dig up
      • lprent 10.1.1

        6 February 2014 at 10:58 pm

        Oil and gas exists in many places. So does uranium and other useful substances. Current commercial viability determines if it is worth extracting.

        But by the sound of it the stuff than the cowboys found wasn’t even energy viable. In other words it’d take more energy to extract than the energy extracted. That is pretty damn pathetic and is never worth looking at at any price.

        I’m expecting much the same in the Great Southern Basin. Quite simply we aren’t a good geology for any *significiant* oil or gas finds. What was abnormal was the Taranaki finds.

Links to post

1. The Daily Blog Watch – 4/5 February 2014 « The Daily Blog: posted on 5 February 2014 at 7:51 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS