Open Mike 30/06/2018

90 comments on “Open Mike 30/06/2018 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tony Veitch (not etc.) 1

   30 June 2018 at 6:34 am

   Another mass shooting in the US – symptom of a dysfunctional society?

   Add to the above:

   “As one of the world’s wealthiest societies, the US is what Alston calls a “land of stark contrasts”. It is home to one in four of the world’s 2,208 billionaires.
   At the other end of the spectrum, 40 million Americans live in poverty. More than five million eke out an existence amid the kind of absolute deprivation normally associated with the developing world.

   The symptoms of such glaring inequality include:
   • Americans now live shorter and sicker lives than citizens of other rich democracies;
   • Tropical diseases that flourish in conditions of poverty are on the rise;
   • The US incarceration rate remains the highest in the world;
   • Voter registration levels are among the lowest in industrialised nations – 64% of the voting-age population, compared with 91% in Canada and the UK and 99% in Japan.”

   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/01/us-inequality-donald-trump-cruel-measures-un

   Isn’t it about time this country took a more neutral and independent line on the world scene – keeping our distance from both the US and China (just as dangerous a country to get into bed with, imo). Looking inwards for our own prosperity and not going ‘cap in hand’ to the altar of ‘world trade’?
   • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1

     30 June 2018 at 8:59 am

     We must distinguish ourselves from US centeric interests if we are to thrive once the economic power shift to the East is complete.

     When trade commenced in the Petro-Yuan it took just two months before 12% of trade was conducted in PY in preference to the previous standard of the Petro-dollar.

     A smart country would read the writing on the wall and react now while it is easier to reposition, but yes both dangerous.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     30 June 2018 at 1:58 pm

     Isn’t it about time this country took a more neutral and independent line on the world scene – keeping our distance from both the US and China (just as dangerous a country to get into bed with, imo). Looking inwards for our own prosperity and not going ‘cap in hand’ to the altar of ‘world trade’?

     Yes it is. Being totally dependent upon other countries is bad for a country as it leaves them vulnerable to the actions of those countries.
   • NZJester 1.3

     30 June 2018 at 3:55 pm

     The NRAs current president in the US who got given the position with the help of the gun lobby is a man who has admitted under oath to being a Traitor to the US and to selling guns to people listed as terrorists by the US. The only reason he is not in Jail is the case against him fell apart because most of the evidence had to be tossed out as it was freely given by him to a congressional hearing under an immunity deal.
     That is the sort of man you have running the NRA in the US and able to legally bribe their politicians to ignore the call of the majority of their voters for gun control.
2. spoiler 2

   30 June 2018 at 7:54 am

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12080025
   • Bearded Git 2.1

     30 June 2018 at 12:46 pm

     Hooton making things up….surely not? (I was daft enough to believe this for a few hours which is maybe Hootons agenda…mud sticks)
3. RedLogix 3

   30 June 2018 at 8:46 am

   Looks like the ‘lucky country’ may get lucky twice from it’s mining boom:

   One analysis I read suggested there may be literally thousands of such sites all over the outback, with a staggering potential.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

     30 June 2018 at 9:17 am

     Meanwhile…

     …tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.

     James Hansen.
     • RedLogix 3.1.1

       30 June 2018 at 10:16 am

       Hansen is absolutely one of the good guys, but neither do I buy into the stupid totalitarian idea that any individual is omniscient.

       Critically there are three things coming together which will bring renewables into a new focus:

       1. PV is now being installed at utility scale (> 50 MW) at prices under 3 cents/kWhr, well under any fossil fuel generation. In Australia 60% of all new generation is PV or wind. The economics have now tilted permanently in renewable’s favour; and the smart money in town is now chasing the opportunities as illustrated above.

       2. Storage technologies are coming online as engineered reality; pumped storage is one example. The other which is up and running can be seen here:

       https://www.aalborgcsp.com/projects/366mwth-integrated-energy-system-based-on-csp-australia/

       3. Smart distribution technologies are gaining more traction, allowing generation and consumption to be better matched both temporally and spatially. A global HVDC super-grid will eventually resolve this issue permanently:

       https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/lets-build-a-global-power-grid
       • Bill 3.1.1.1

         30 June 2018 at 10:39 am

         So the technology is there or getting there. And the price signals are improving. We even have engineers and technicians and what not to design and build and develop whatever might be required.

         And we have something over 20 years at our current rates of emissions to get it all developed, built, and up and running to (perhaps) avoid 2 degrees of warming.

         I don’t think there’s much in the way of “omniscience” required to figure that no matter the amount of will power, it just ain’t possible to hard boil an egg in an open pan of water in 30 sec flat. (That being the basic situation we’re facing in terms of time with AGW and possible tech roll outs)
         • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1

           30 June 2018 at 11:01 am

           The history has many striking examples of what happens when a new technology reaches a tipping point; crucially where it become 3 – 10 times cheaper or better than the one it replaces.

           While the first cars where marketed in the early 1890’s, in the decade from about 1902 to 1912 horses literally vanished from large Western cities as cars totally replaced them.

           The first commercial mini-computers became available around the late 60’s, but suddenly from 1980 onwards they penetrated everywhere. To the point now where modern business gets nothing done without them.

           Mobile phones came into use in the early 90’s, but the advent of smartphones in the mid-2000’s literally exploded their penetration to every corner of the planet.

           Electric cars are on the cusp of the same transition.

           In hindsight the transition always looks obvious, but what no-one anticipates in advance is how fast and how comprehensive the process can be.
           • Bill 3.1.1.1.1.1

             30 June 2018 at 11:39 am

             Sure. But none of those instances or examples even begin to approach the sheer scale of whats required in terms of engineering in the face of AGW (if the idea is to swap out carbon while we just carry on). And none of those things were subject to the time constraints we’re looking at.

             You talk of electric cars. But it would have to be electric cars and shipping and aviation and most of the world’s electricity generation plus whatever of the world’s 80% of energy needs, not covered above, that aren’t currently “vectored” through electricity.

             And all in something like 20 years assuming no increase in emissions from present levels (they’re actually going up every year).

             As I commented – it’s like saying you’ll take an egg and hard boil it in 30. Nice idea. Doesn’t stack up.

             late edit on a mistaken assumption contained in your comment about efficiency and cost driving change. Steam was never cheaper or more efficient than water as a source of energy for mills. And yet…
             • Ad …

               30 June 2018 at 11:47 am

               RedLogix did not claim it would cure climate change.
               The comments were limited to electricity generation, electricity networks, and electricity storage.

               The other comments were illustrations of technological change, not as contributions to alleviating climate change.
               • Bill …

                 30 June 2018 at 1:08 pm

                 Electricity storage, networks and generation are going to have to encompass most of the 80% of energy we use that isn’t from a zero or low carbon source.

                 That aside, I didn’t think for one second that RL was making any claim to having stumbled on “a cure for” climate change. But I’m pretty sure he was alluding to the possibility of techno fixes that would see us making no more contribution to global warming. Which, by the way, is feasible, just not in terms of 2 degrees of warming (avoidance of).
             • RedLogix …

               30 June 2018 at 12:04 pm

               That’s a pretty solid response Bill; the numbers are daunting, and hard to argue with given our current position. In very rough terms the ‘big three’ contributors to fossil CO2 are in order of magnitude (IIRC):

               1. Electricity

               2. Transport

               3. Steel and concrete

               The first is 100% solvable relatively quickly within two decades, the second can be dramatically improved. The third contribution from steel and concrete are going to be the difficult one, as at present we don’t have a lot of good alternatives I’m aware of. (Other than engineered timber which I like a lot, but has limits.)

               Over the past two centuries fossil fuels have served an extraordinary purpose in moving the vast majority of the human population out of absolute degrading poverty and slavery, to on average, a modest standard of living and welfare. Turning the clock back on that is simply not an option.

               In solving one problem, we have uncovered another; we are hard up against the limits of what fossil carbon can do for us.

               The deep choice we face is this; do we press on down the technological/industrial path in the expectation we can transition off fossil carbon in time, or do we abandon that direction for an entirely unknown destination with wholly unknown risks? And to what extent is this choice conflated with the idea that such a crisis might offer a chance to ‘smash capitalism’?

               Just to be clear for you; the un-reconstructed hippie in me still has a place in my heart for the kind of eco-technic forest garden low energy low consumption vision as patented by the 70’s. The fact that we could imagine it means something. Yet the big wide world out there never seemed to conform to our dreams did it?
               • Bill …

                 30 June 2018 at 1:30 pm

                 I’m not really into hippy stuff.

                 We are facing a problem that we can’t roll out technical solutions for in the time we’ve left ourselves before hitting 2 degrees of warming. And things are going to get ugly and not a little frightening.

                 Slashing energy consumption needn’t mean dawdling back to some “sackcloth” past.

                 I think most of us can agree that a hell of a lot of utter shit is manufactured and distributed and that a lot of energy is used in the process. We could knock all that on the head.

                 Most people are also aware than many jobs are pretty pointless; that if they do serve a point beyond just keeping people occupied and in thrall to generating profit for some-one or other, then that point has never been elucidated. So, given those pointless jobs also consume a vast amount of energy, we could quite painlessly knock all those jobs on the head too.

                 So far, I’m not seeing any downside 🙂

                 But sure (and this seems central to inaction on AGW) the economy we have would be shredded if we took those steps. So we need to imagine and develop new ways to do stuff, or we’ll just stupidly knacker ourselves because one idea of what an economy ought to be was biting the dust.

                 I’m still not seeing any inevitably looming “sackclothed” downside.

                 In fact, with all that human potential freed up and a world of possibility…

                 The flip side is a world of bugger all possibility arriving with an economy biting the dust at the point it can no longer withstand the impacts of climate changes and AGW.
                 • RedLogix …

                   30 June 2018 at 2:10 pm

                   A lot of good points well made Bill, especially when you address the gross waste and inefficiency of much of our current economic activity. But then again this isn’t a unique feature of 21st century life; we’re just doing it on a grand scale our ancestors had no access to.

                   I’m not the only one here who has often mused that politics is an insufficient level of analysis; it’s only a small part of the story. It goes much deeper than this; it strikes at exactly what makes us human and why we behave in these apparently contradictory, self-destructive ways.

                   It’s entirely impossible to imagine a world for instance, where Arrhenius’ discoveries in the 1890’s would have immediately led to a rational, logical and eminently sensible cessation of fossil fuel use. People just are not like that. And we cannot, should not, try and imagine we can force them to be.

                   What we can do is encourage us to understand ourselves and observe all the ways we fuck things up. And then help each other, one painful step at a time to do better. I think that’s all I have to say for the moment … thank you for an interesting conversation Bill.

                   Cheers
             • RedLogix …

               30 June 2018 at 12:35 pm

               Steam was never cheaper or more efficient than water as a source of energy for mills.

               An interesting proposition. The engineering answer is that water mills, while efficient in one sense, had strict scalability limits which horribly constrained their range of application. Nor of course was a water mill ever going to be of much use to drive a locomotive or ship.

               The thing is, fossil carbon in all it’s forms came with so many immediate advantages, unprecedented energy density, portability and storage qualities … that once discovered we were never NOT going to exploit them.

               And we have … to a remarkable extent. The world is a totally different place to 1818. You really don’t want to go back there, for the average person … most people … life was very hard indeed. And given this enormous progress it’s very understandable that so many people really didn’t want to accept that it came with limits, that there would come a time when this geological genie that literally popped out of the earth, might come with a cost.

               There is no perfect solution here; there are risks whatever we do. But my sense is that the world is reaching a point where it is looking to build on what we have already achieved, and mass adoption of renewables will be part of that mix.
               • Bill …

                 30 June 2018 at 12:59 pm

                 I’m not arguing against non-carbon sources of energy in terms of research, development of roll-out.

                 I’m simply pointing out some obvious time restraints that impact any notions around a switch to non-carbon energy happening alongside maintaining what we have, and continuing to do as we do. There’s a bin marked “false hope” for that garbage.

                 Industry of the early 1800s ran on water, and had no problem in terms of up scaling. (Add another wheel. Build a bigger wheel. Construct more water channels etc).

                 Social control and power, rather than engineering efficiency or market signals, drove the switch to coal fired steam engines.

                 I don’t know how “nasty, brutish and short” life really was for those in 1818 not caught up by industrialisation (as opposed to those who were). But I know that however bad or good it was,it’s probably going to look really fcking desirable from the vantage point of humanity experiencing starvation at the continental level when sea level rise wipes out the 20-25% of global food production that occurs on deltas within the space of current human lives.
                 • Pat …

                   30 June 2018 at 1:19 pm

                   “I don’t know how “nasty, brutish and short” life really was for those in 1818 not caught up by industrialisation (as opposed to those who were). But I know that however bad or good it was,it’s probably going to look really fcking desirable from the vantage point of humanity experiencing starvation at the continental level when sea level rise wipes out the 20-25% of global food production that occurs on deltas within the space of current human lives.”

                   aint that the truth!
                 • RedLogix …

                   30 June 2018 at 1:41 pm

                   Social control and power, rather than engineering efficiency or market signals, drove the switch to coal fired steam engines.

                   I don’t think so. Social control and power long pre-existed your pre-industrial water powered Eden of 1800; it’s not the child of capitalism or technology, rather a great-great-grand ancestor eons old.

                   What is true is that as we have developed more technically complex societies, at least from the invention of agriculture onward, our personal relationship with the societies we live in has clearly intensified. And that relationship, even as it brings us benefits, often falls short of any imagined ideal.

                   There isn’t a simplistic binary response to what your saying here; yes the Industrial Revolution brought a great deal of change, social chaos and misery. But arguably at the end of it, the average individual was a lot better off and politically a great deal freer than at the beginning.

                   But what I can emphatically say is that the steam engine was not invented as some infernal tool of an evil Illuminati (or whatever), hell-bent on enslaving the human race to it’s nefarious elitist dreams. It works as a metaphor in the Lord of the Rings, but Sauron is not an actual person.

                   We’re holding a conversation on at least two levels simultaneously here; the obvious one is about the technology options in front of us. The other is deeper and harder to grasp. Tolkien’s directly addressed it in his Hobbit narrative; his revulsion and horror of the mechanised death of WW1, contrasted with an idealised conception of the pre-industrial Hobbiton. Yet in the end, despite it’s charm and nostalgia, even Tolkien knew Hobbiton was a fantasy; it had it’s own internal contradictions and flawed beings.
                   • McFlock …

                     30 June 2018 at 1:58 pm

                     On the switch to coal, I read an interesting theory years ago that argued the Romans should have developed coal/steam power, but their supply of slaves made it pointless for them to develop alternatives. So possibly not a coincidence that steam power was developed in a nation with one of the weakest monarchies at the time.
                   • Bill …

                     30 June 2018 at 2:16 pm

                     I’m not suggesting there was any pre-industrial water powered Eden of 1800. (The switch from water to steam occurred well into the 1800s btw) Neither am I daft enough to believe that power struggles don’t date back to “way back when”.

                     Andrea Malm has a very good book laying out the various arguments and looking at the historical record. It’s called “Fossil Capital – the rise of steam power and the roots of global warming”.

                     I recommended it to Carolyn Nth the other day.

                     Some “snapshots”.

                     Watt and his business partner failed to make money selling steam engines to mills in Watt’s lifetime because they were expensive and inefficient in relation to water.

                     Rural populations routinely abandoned the water powered mills they worked in (why wouldn’t they?) Mill owners then enslaved unpaid children from orphanages to make up the short fall (they ran away too.)

                     Relocating mills to centres like Manchester and running them on steam, not only accessed a larger pool of itinerant labour, but after a couple of generations, city kids knew no different – had no memory or experience of rural life and were therefore more “amenable” to factory life..

                     There were also bullshit arguments between owners of various workshops and mills over who should pay what in terms of upkeep for the infrastructure required to “tap” a river. Coal fired steam engines sidestepped that conflict.
                   • RedLogix …

                     30 June 2018 at 2:20 pm

                     @ Mc Flock

                     An interesting argument; it certainly points to the idea that in order to become disruptive a new technology does need to be at least 3 -10 times better than what it’s replacing … something near enough isn’t sufficient to negate the sunk costs of the existing infrastructure.

                     The engineering response would be two words: Bessemer Process. In order for a steam engine to be efficient it needs to operate at temperatures and pressures that Roman era metals simply could not sustain. The introduction of the Bessemer process in the 1850’s produced for the first time large amounts of high quality, low cost steel with predictable qualities.

                     @ Bill. Which is why the early steam engines were relatively slow to gain wide acceptance. It was only when decent steel came along for the boiler tubes did the equations tip dramatically in their favour.

                     Much of what we think of as technological advances are in reality built on the back of advances in materials, a branch of engineering that never gets enough credit for what it contributes.
                   • Sanctuary …

                     30 June 2018 at 4:50 pm

                     @McFlock – Steam seems simple. the Greeks made little whirligigs that seemed to be “steam powered” but that understanding is simply ignorant. Using escaping steam as a form of “jet power” is NOT how steam engines work. The early “steam engines” of the industrial age did not actually produce very much power in comparison to their cost and slow speed.

                     The reason is that “steam” is compressible. And because of that it actually exerts very little force on a cylinder. What made the modern “steam engine” was the accidental realization that spraying a little cold water into a cylinder full of steam caused the steam to immediately collapse… and the VACUUM created in the cylinder has a thousand times more force than the steam can possibly exert. Its Vacuum that drives a steam engines cylinder, not the pressure of steam.

                     But to discover this, you need to have not only sophisticated metallurgical skills, you also have to understand just what a vacuum is, and how to calculate the force of the vacuum on the materials of the engine so that you can design an engine that can withstand those forces… and, that means you need to be able to measure and quantify such parameters as ductility, tensile strength, elasticity, as well as be able to measure and control very high temperatures with precision to produce materials with reliable properties… and that means you need to have thermometers, and the maths to calculate altitudes, air pressure, and more.

                     For example, the Romans routinely created vacuums whenever they tried to pump water out of mines in stages longer than 10 metres. But they had no idea they were creating vacuums. They had no idea WHY the water would not go higher in a pipe than 10 metres no matter how hard you tried to pump it. They just understood they had to break pumping systems down to 10 metre lengths. And then pump again from there.

                     They could not understand the vacuum because they lacked the intellectual tools. Have you ever tried to do advanced calculations using Roman numerals and no concept of zero? The Romans had no concept of the modern idea of science that would have allowed them record and quantify and correlate the physical world around them in such a way as to build a cohesive scientific picture of the laws of nature.

                     Knowing a steam jet makes something go around is meaningless unless you know also why it makes it go round. A good example of this phenomena is gunpowder. Serendipitously inventing a formula of something that goes BANG! is not remotely as powerful as knowing WHY gunpowder explodes.

                     The former is a just a recipe you follow without understanding. it offers you nothing but the gunpowder, which is why all you got was gunpowder for another 1000 years.

                     The latter offers you the capability of creating countless other chemicals, with countless other applications, because you have a theory of chemistry you can employ to make a multitude of compounds.
                   • RedLogix …

                     30 June 2018 at 5:21 pm

                     @ Sanctuary

                     Great explanation around the importance of steam condensers in the process.

                     The other intellectual tool the Romans were missing was any inkling of thermodynamics. That really didn’t come along until Carnot formulated the first proper efficiency calculations for steam engine around 1824:

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_L%C3%A9onard_Sadi_Carnot
                   • Sanctuary …

                     30 June 2018 at 5:46 pm

                     @Bill – mate, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the early industrial revolution.

                     “…Industry of the early 1800s ran on water, and had no problem in terms of up scaling. (Add another wheel. Build a bigger wheel. Construct more water channels etc)…”

                     Wrong to the point of laughable, because you completely fail to account for the cost of distribution. Water wheels require water. If you have a mine in need of pumping nowhere near a river, then even the biggest fucking water wheel in all existence is of absolutely no use to you. Grinding flour at a riverside mill might be cheaper than using a steam powered plant to do so, but by the time you factor in the costs of shipping the grain to the water mill and then back to the markets, it is hopelessly inefficient compared to a steam powered mill. That is because the cost of transporting manufactured goods overland to the markets that wanted them doubled every few miles. Steam engines are far more flexible, you assemble one in the place where the people are and with a hey nonny-nonny your flour mill is in business.

                     The first most critical requirement for steam power was for pumping water out of coal mines. Beginning in the mid 15th Century Great Britain ran out of ready sources of wood for domestic fuel use. Remember, at this time wood was an especially important strategic resource, essential to naval shipbuilding for example and the main source of construction material before the industrial manufacture of bricks. The price of wood soared, and by the end of the Tudor age much of Great Britain was completely deforested. Unlike the Mediterranean basin Britain had a lot of readily accessible coal seams near the surface, so the British switched to coal for most domestic fuel use. The amount of coal shipped to London from Newcastle grew by 3000% between 1550 and 1700, and the increase in the volume of coal mined between 1556 and 1606 exceeded the growth rate of coal mined at the height of the early industrial revolution.

                     As surface coal seams were exhausted, mines went deeper and new technologies were needed to pump out water. As I noted in my post to McFlock, early steam engines were very inefficient. 80% of the energy is wasted in a Newcomen engine and they used a lot of coal. But they also allowed mining at much greater depths, and advances in design by Watt and John Smeaton rapidly improved their efficiency, and over the next 150 years steams engines became dramatically more efficient and economical.

                     I have never heard anyone suggest that the industrial revolution could have been achieved with the steam engine, so i guess your argument has novelty. But only the novelty of the kind reserved for the prefix of a silly hat at the fancy dress shop.
                   • Bill …

                     30 June 2018 at 6:37 pm

                     @ Sanctuary.

                     We probably agree that the Industrial Revolution in Britain was predicated upon cotton, yes? (ie, it was the cotton industry that grew far faster than other manufacturies of the time)

                     And whatever you’re opinion of me may or may not be in terms of knowing what I’m talking about, the historical record shows that paper mills, cotton mills and other factories requiring power were overwhelmingly powered by water.

                     You want to argue with the historical record, (presumably on the basis that it’s laughable) then have at it.

                     In relation to your comments on transportation costs etc.

                     Do you have any idea about the extensive canal networks that used to criss-cross Britain’s industrial heartlands? (Some are still used). Or the sheer availability and accessibility of places with a high head of water in Britain? (It was no accident that mills were built at the foot of the Highlands and throughout Lancashire). Or of the number of solid flowing rivers passing though major centres of population? (I think most British cities are located on major rivers)

                     As late as 1826, calculations on the comparative costs of running a mill on coal or water, “including as costs associated with water rent to the landlord, outlays on dams and sluices, expenses for transporting raw materials and a manager between mill and market”…the steam engines coal consumption meant that water was more cost effective.

                     You want to talk of mines and coal for domestic heating purposes going as far back as Elizabethan times? That has nothing whatsoever to do with what initially powered the industrial revolution.

                     Now. You want to call me a clown? Fine. Me and history both.

                     But in that case, what hat is it you reckon you should be grabbing for yourself from the fancy dress shop?
                   • Sanctuary …

                     30 June 2018 at 8:01 pm

                     The industrial revolution began as the result of a confluence of numerous technological, economic and political drivers. The need for cheap energy (coal) as a substitute for depleted wood supplies was an important early driver of the chain of events that led to the industrial revolution. Cotton had nothing to do with that – the explosion of inventions that transformed cotton from a rare and expensive textile into a cheap, mass produced one post date the beginnings of the industrial revolution.

                     the fact that the early transitional stages of the industrial revolution were powered by water more than steam (due to the inefficiencies of early steam power) does not negate the central point that coal extraction with the aid of steam power was a major trigger of the chain of events the culminated in the industrial revolution. Remember, your claim is that the move to steam power was driven by a need for “…Social control and power…” rather than any economic imperative.

                     Your choice of Manchester is highly illustrative of this process. Your are completely wrong in your statement “…Relocating mills to centres like Manchester and running them on steam…” Manchester became an important early centre of textile production (the reason for the supply of cheap cotton is whole other series of intertwined events) due to the abundance of water to power the early mills and, in the form of the River Irwell, to provide efficient transport to the growing port of Liverpool and the sea (which, BTW, is another example of the inefficiencies of land transportation). But Manchester then EXPLODED as an industrial hub because it is close to the cheap coal fields of Northern England and Wales and local sources of iron ore, essential to making steam engines and other machinery. Oh and your claim that “…Watt and his business partner failed to make money selling steam engines to mills in Watt’s lifetime because they were expensive and inefficient in relation to water…” is simply not true. Watt lived to be 83 and became extremely wealthy and his steam engines were wildly popular. I would be interested to know where you got this particularly egregrious piece of mis-information from!

                     The canal system also post dates the industrial revolution. When you think about it, it stand to reason that a canal system wouldn’t be built unless there was a need for it – in other words, a need to transport goods and commodities in large quantities – large quantities made possible by the explosion in manufacturing made possible by the industrial revolution. Again, the story of the first “proper” canal in the UK illustrates my points well. The Sankey Canal (opened 1757) was built primarily to transport coal to Liverpool. Secondly, water transport was by far more efficient than carts, reinforcing my earlier point about transport costs.

                     The bold claim was that “… Steam was never cheaper or more efficient than water as a source of energy for mills…” and that “…Social control and power… …drove the switch to coal fired steam engines…” Bold claims require strong evidence. You’ve not provided any.
                   • McFlock …

                     30 June 2018 at 8:09 pm

                     I was actually thinking of the 18th century static engines rather when the technology matured (‘brick’ phones rather than iphones). But of course those were to respond to very specific problems without nearby water power. Necessity, motherhood, and all that.

                     Also a fair point about the legacy of Newton.
                   • Bill …

                     30 June 2018 at 8:47 pm

                     @ Sanctuary
                     The need for cheap energy (coal) as a substitute for depleted wood supplies was an important early driver of the chain of events that led to the industrial revolution

                     The historical record is clear. Water (a ‘free’ energy source following initial outlay) was cheaper than coal, and preferred by factory owners in the first 1/4 to 1/3rd of the 1800s over coal driven steam engines.

                     The transition to coal, as I wrote earlier in response to RL is the subject of “Fossil Capital – the rise of steam power and the roots of global warming“, by Andreas Malm (Lund University)

                     You can find some presentations by him in English on youtube if you care to search.

                     From the back jacket of the book.

                     Contrary to established views, steam offered neither cheaper nor more abundant energy—but rather superior control of subordinate labour. Animated by fossil fuels, capital could concentrate production at the most profitable sites and during the most convenient hours, as it continues to do today. Sweeping from nineteenth-century Manchester to the emissions explosion in China…

                     Bold claims require strong evidence. You’ve not provided any.

                     I’ve provided the source more than once, and that source offers a thorough, fully footnoted exploration of what drove manufacturing from water power to steam power. Do yourself a favour and read it instead of throwing idiotic accusations, assertions and ad homs around a thread, aye?

                     edit. And the canal system in Britain was going into decline by the second half of the 1800s (because rail). Their development hardly then post dating the industrial revolution as you assert.
             • NZJester …

               30 June 2018 at 4:15 pm

               The one thing about even burning dirty fuels like coal to create the electricity to power electric cars is that in a lot of cases it is still slightly cleaner than using petrol and diesel-powered engines. When it comes to cars used in big cities due to the amount of time a lot of them sit around at a traffic light or stuck in traffic jams with their engines idling there is a very large amount of fuel they burn wastefully, while the majority of the power generated at a power station is being used and little wasted.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2

         30 June 2018 at 10:48 am

         “The trouble with Hansen is he’s never been wrong”.
         • RedLogix 3.1.1.2.1

           30 June 2018 at 11:02 am

           As with OAB apparently.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2.1.1

             30 June 2018 at 11:19 am

             The quote has multiple interpretations. Slow clap for picking the least nuanced of them and making an insult out of it. Well done, bravo.
             • RedLogix …

               30 June 2018 at 11:37 am

               Your quote immediately above with the term “never been wrong” is strongly absolute. Especially absent any clarifying nuance you didn’t feel need to provide.

               And the original quote at 3.1 does of course has a few different ways to look at it; feel free to explain why you chose to use it, and the impeccable pristine meaning you intended to convey, and I so stupidly missed.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 30 June 2018 at 11:55 am

                 1. Being wrong once in a while builds character.
                 2. If your predictions are sufficiently broad, your chances of error diminish.
                 3. Is the “trouble” a problem for Hansen or us?

                 A fat lot of good It’s done him.
                 • RedLogix …

                   30 June 2018 at 12:06 pm

                   In that case I must have a whole lot more ‘character’ than I probably know what to do with.
       • Bearded Git 3.1.1.3

         30 June 2018 at 12:50 pm

         Great post Red….lots of good info. Party Vote Green and all of this will continue apace.
   • Ad 3.2

     30 June 2018 at 9:53 am

     Awesome project.
     We’re across a few of the wind farms in South Australia.
   • DH 3.3

     30 June 2018 at 10:52 am

     Lucky might be the right word for it redlogix, it looks a good scheme and likely not one we’d be able to do on any decent scale.

     Longer term I can see Aus running large scale desalination plants from renewables, they might even be able to work the two in together.
     • RedLogix 3.3.1

       30 June 2018 at 11:28 am

       Actually we can, or indeed should have, but for the idiot reforms of the National Party which broke the system up. We already have a substantial hydro generation base, and the key to using it intelligently is to minimise using it except to meet demand when other renewables are not available.

       But to do that would require a commercially integrated generation/distribution system that for ideological reasons we’re not allowed to have. Which is why NZ is the ‘not so lucky’ country.
       • Ad 3.3.1.1

         30 June 2018 at 11:35 am

         Also doesn’t help that a few great wind farm (both large and small) proposals were fought tooth and nail by a few locals, so they were stopped.

         The South Australia grid innovations have impressed our firm. Sure hope that the Tesla storage system holds up in a good storm – it’s an important precedent.
       • DH 3.3.1.2

         30 June 2018 at 11:53 am

         I can’t see it RL. The scheme needs two lakes at differing heights, preferably close together. Can’t be much like that in NZ without using up land that’s already being used. Huntly has heaps of lakes but IIRC they’re nearly all on the same level.
         • RedLogix 3.3.1.2.1

           30 June 2018 at 12:18 pm

           Sorry I wasn’t clear; from an energy perspective not using already stored energy in a hydro lake, is the same as actively adding to the storage, if you can substitute with other renewables elsewhere.

           All that any pump hydro or storage system does is to time shift the net generation; ie moving the excess of PV generation from the daytime, to the evenings where the demand is.

           You get a similar result in say NZ if you stop using the existing run of river hydro during the daytime (effectively topping up the storage) by switching to wind or pv during the day, then running the hydro harder in the evenings drawing down on what you haven’t used during the daytime.

           It requires some planning and solid technical integration, and as a concept has engineering limits … but entirely doable.
           • DH 3.3.1.2.1.1

             30 June 2018 at 1:19 pm

             They do that already don’t they RL? Our hydro is mostly on waterways so they are limited in how much they can control the flow.

             Cheap storage of power has been the number one obstacle since electricity was first discovered. When you look at how the world has progressed with everything else it’s quite surprising they haven’t cracked it yet.

             Some of the lesser options are quite simple but (presently) defeated by practical economics. When we have a shower in the morning the water cylinder is reheated from the grid before the sun is high enough in the sky to generate much solar energy. For the homeowner with solar panels the cost of getting a sparkie in to install a timer on the water cylinder can eat up the potential savings.
         • Graeme 3.3.1.2.2

           30 June 2018 at 3:08 pm

           There’s plenty of potential in Otago for pumped storage. Hawea and Wanaka could work but with constraints around the natural level of Wanaka. The Waipori scheme could easily be made to work “backwards” along with the small schemes fed from the high lakes like Onslow. But any hydro dam could be configured to “recycle” water, or in effect energy.

           One aspect that’s been glossed over in the video that RL put up in the OP was the efficiency of the undertaking. Wiki says 70 – 80% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity and then you’d have transmission losses on top of that. But probably still worthwhile.

           Also had a quiet chuckle at Australia striving to meet “a goal of 20% renewable”. We are very fortunate in that regard.
           • RedLogix 3.3.1.2.2.1

             30 June 2018 at 3:28 pm

             Good catch on the relatively low in/out efficiencies. Fortunately when the marginal cost of your input energy is almost zero, anything over 60% will do.

             Incidentally I instigated and commissioned a modest 300 kW hydro using a couple of existing pumps run backwards on a water supply system some years back. The in/out efficiency was never better than 62% but it just didn’t matter; the payback of the project was well under 10 months.

             But otherwise yes, with our mountainous geography there must be more than a few decent pumped storage locations around. Fiordland is essentially one giant opportunity full of hanging glacial valleys with solid rock … albeit with obvious issues around it’s National Park status. The tramper in me would have to fight it boot and ice-axe 🙂
             • Graeme …

               30 June 2018 at 4:22 pm

               In terms of raw efficiency it’s hard to beat modern batteries, Tesla claim in – out efficiencies above 90% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall

               Economic efficiency and return on investment could be another thing however. Also there’s return on investment for the developer / promotor to factor in, along with entrenched utilities, the consumer just being the mug who’s paying for it.
           • DH 3.3.1.2.2.2

             30 June 2018 at 4:33 pm

             I can see some of the dedicated hydro schemes being suitable but I’m not convinced you can do it with most dams. Dams are on river systems, start pumping it back up again and you interfere with the habitat and environment downstream of the dam. Realistically you’d want to pump from dam to dam, like what the aussies are doing, or at least catchment to dam and pumping distance would surely be an issue there (?).

             70-80% efficiency is very worthwhile if they can achieve that. For large scale solar they can now buy panels for around NZ60c per watt. Allow annual generation of 1000watts per watt, lifetime of 25 years and your generation cost is 2.4c kW/hr. Installation, land and other plant would probably double that for the final cost but 30% on top for dam storage is still peanuts, doesn’t add much at that level. I thought it would be much less efficient.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.3

         30 June 2018 at 2:37 pm

         But to do that would require a commercially integrated generation/distribution system that for ideological reasons we’re not allowed to have.

         Actually, to do it requires power being turned back into a government service. Commercialisation won’t do it fast enough and there’d have to be all sorts of regulations around connection to get the smart-grid working. Easier and cheaper just to have the government do it.
4. cleangreen 4

   30 June 2018 at 9:03 am

   Agree Tony with your analogy of the current state of the global health system.

   I was chemically poisoned over 25yrs ago in a workplace ‘accident’ in Canada and found out the ‘hard way’ that the global governments and medical fraternity did not know anythuing about the dangers of chemical exposures to the human bieng.

   This publically funded group were the one that saved my life; jion thisn group.
   https://www.ciin.org/

   Here a a library of evidence of the exposures we continually face and fornuse in litigation proceedings.

   Chemical Exposure and Human Health
   A Reference to 314 Chemicals with a Guide to Symptoms
   by Cynthia Wilson

   The classic MCS sufferer’s volume on the known health effects of chemical exposures. Written by Cynthia Wilson, the founder and Executive Director of Chemical Injury Information Network, it remains the most valuable source of chemical information written by a lay person about the health hazards from everyday chemical exposures. The sections on Symptoms and Potential Causes, Sources of Exposures and the Chemical Directory are priceless.

   The book was originally priced at $55.00 and is no longer in print. 345 pages $25.00 plus $5 s/h Used but unscented copies.

   Order online or by mail here – https://www.ciin.org/books.html

   https://www.ciin.org/news_ott.html

   Since 1993 I have lived mostrly outside of the whole medical system, – living on the age old method of first listening to my body and responding to the signals it sends me to respond to it. No medical Doctor could even contemplate doing this nor could they physically carry this out unless 100% monitoring of my system and brain functions.

   Some claiim that a monitor can be placed on our body but still they do not treat the systoms with any thing else than thiose toxic invasive prescription medications who I was found to have “adverse medical reations to”.

   No toxic ‘prescription medications’ are used today in my life long slow recovery from almost certain death after the workplace accidental exposures to well documented chemical toxic soup I was exposed to without a workplace adequate ventilation during the six month place accident/incident that affected over 40 workers on that worksite during that time and several have since died who were medically documented very healthy proir to the accident.

   We need to look at our own woeful agency called OSH ‘Occupational Safety and Health and re-train the medical community in “toxicology” as we now live in a toxic chemical soup daily nowdays and it is getting worse by the day.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1

     30 June 2018 at 11:17 am

     Thanks for that link @CleanGreen.
5. Sanctuary 5

   30 June 2018 at 9:04 am

   I unapologetically post yet another Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez video. She is a rising star, and unlike the morbidly aged senior house democrats (Americans really need to talk about the age of their representatives. Maxine Waters is 79. Nancy Pelosi is 78. Senator Dianne Feinstein is 85. The average age of the top four house democrats is I think 76 years old) she is young and in touch with her district.

   Sam Seder basically dissects the default position of hostility the establishment MSM has towards left wing change agents (TL,DR – anyone outside the establishment is treated as a freak and interviewed with an air of condescending cynicism with an aim to write them off using gotcha tactics. You hear this style ALL.THE.FUCKING.TIME. from establishment toadies like Guyon Espiner and Susie Ferguson).

   The lesson for the NZ Labour party is how easy it is to deal with the ambient passive aggressiveness of the establishment media IF YOU ACTUALLY FUCKING BELIEVE IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM.
   • RedLogix 5.1

     30 June 2018 at 9:34 am

     Interesting Ocasio-Cortez when asked what she would replace ICE with argues that the purpose of a border agency is to ensure “safe passage”. I’m curious what she means by this. By itself this seems an inadequate definition of what a border is about, surely there is more to a border than handing out coffee, donuts and a ‘welcome to the USA pack’ to anyone who cares to turn up.

     The good news is that Mexico is likely to elect a strongly left-wing govt:

     http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-30/mexico-election-amlo-leads-the-polls/9925238

     Hopefully this will turn the country around and lead millions of migrants to head back to their homeland. Maybe Mexico will finish up build a wall to keep out hordes of fleeing Americans. 🙂

     (I’m thinking of an American couple I met at Tocumen Airport last week, who were doing exactly that. They’d just purchased a new home in Ecuador specifically to get away from the “fear which saturates America”.)

     Interesting times.
     • Sanctuary 5.1.1

       30 June 2018 at 10:31 am

       “… I’m curious what she means by this…”

       The point of the interview wasn’t to interrogate Ocasio-Cortez in order to allow voters to better understand her beliefs and satisfy your curiosity. Poppy Harlow missed a couple of opportunities to pin Ocasio-Cortez down on potentially interesting answers because she wasn’t listening to Ocasio-Cortez’s answers – she was looking for an opening to attack Ocasio-Cortez based on a tired establishment narrative.

       Poppy Harlow approached the interview from a well worn position of establishment superiority with a well worn interviewing template designed to serve a well worn agenda.

       It is reflexive, non-thinking, lazy and complacent journalism informed by ambient hostility to anti-establishment thinking.

       Sam Seder’s commentary is entirely about how the only new information that came out of this interview was for those viewers intuitive enough to perceive the meta data of the interview.
       • RedLogix 5.1.1.1

         30 June 2018 at 10:44 am

         The points on the cynical narrowness of the the media are well made; and I agree the interview cast little light on any actual policy.

         Still the phrase “safe passage” is interesting one and we’ll need to look elsewhere to find out what the details are.
     • Wayne 5.1.2

       30 June 2018 at 11:47 am

       It does really matter what she thinks of ICE. It is not as if becoming a congresswoman confers the power of the government on that person. The US, irrespective of who is the next president, or the president after that, is not suddenly going to have an open border policy. That would be true even if Ocasio-Cortez became president.

       What she will be a fresh face for her district with the sort of appeal of the PM.

       Look at Obama. The process of becoming president, and making the inevitable compromises that involves, mean you can’t do a sharp U turn in the overall direction of government. He did end the Iraq war, but wasn’t able to decisively win the Afghan war. He did do Obama care, but with huge compromises.

       Perhaps a better example of a revolutionary president is Trump. He did pull out of TPP (which had not come into force anyway). He has done a tax package but that is standard fare for a Republican. There is a lot of things he can’t do. He can’t unwind Obama care.

       What he has done is change the overall tone of the Presidency (for the worse). It will be changed back at some point. Obama had the rhetoric, but what else?

       None of this is to say Ocasio-Cortez can’t make a difference. She can. But she can’t start a socialist revolution, not in the US. Even the most radical president (in the sense of ushering in big government), Franklin Roosevelt did not turn the US into a socialist paradise.
       • Wayne 5.1.2.1

         30 June 2018 at 12:51 pm

         My first line should have read “it does not matter…”
       • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.2

         30 June 2018 at 6:33 pm

         “Even … Franklin Roosevelt did not turn the US into a socialist paradise.”

         No, but he moved it in the right direction, just as you moved ours in the wrong direction.
         • Grafton Gully 5.1.2.2.1

           30 June 2018 at 8:28 pm

           FDR was against a “socialist paradise ” in a 1913 essay.

           “The very reason why we object to state ownership, that it puts a stop to individual initiative and to the healthy development of personal responsibility, is the reason why we object to an unsupervised, unchecked monopolistic control in private hands. We urge control and supervision by the nation as an antidote to the movement for state socialism. Those who advocate total lack of regulation, those who advocate lawlessness in the business world, themselves give the strongest impulse to what I believe would be the deadening movement toward unadulterated state socialism.”

           http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1160845

           He was POTUS thirty years later when New Deal legislation saved american capitalism from the effects of the Great Depression.
           • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.2.1.1

             30 June 2018 at 9:51 pm

             It is said that Roosevelt was something of a patrician, and that much of his social activism came from his wife. But he legislated strongly against monopolists, while our local Gnats (and some others who should be ashamed) bow before them as abjectly as any Persian peasant prostrated themselves before their satraps.
   • Anne 5.2

     30 June 2018 at 9:36 am

     Thanks Sanctuary – will watch this evening. If it is as good as it sounds it will be going further up the chain of command. 🙂
   • veutoviper 5.3

     30 June 2018 at 11:13 am

     Thanks for this, Sanctuary – and definitely no need for any apologies. I had a quick look and decided it is a Must View in full later when there are fewer distractions as at the moment.

     Coincidentally I had just read a Guardian article that had popped up in my ‘you may be interested in this’ list. This is an article by one of their Australian columnists, Van Badham entitled “The future of the left is bright if it looks like Jacinda Ardern and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes”

     IMHO the article provides a refreshing view of the rise of Ardern and Ocasio-Cortes and is well worth reading. As a taste, it concludes with this:

     “Strong men” of the right are now lining up governments from Italy to Turkey to the USA. The times of the now are ones in which we can construct majorities of a diversity they cannot – and do not wish to – represent. We can hope the influence of Jacinda Ardern and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes spread, or we can ensure that it does. The stakes for the marginalised remain life and death.

     The article contains much more, however, particularly on Ardern and NZ; and this is just one of a number of comments that I found interesting from someone looking from the outside in:

     Observe, also Ardern – who is Pakeha, not Maori – meeting the British queen wearing a Kahu huruhuru: a Māori feathered cloak “bestowed on chiefs and dignitaries to convey prestige, respect and power”. It was a demonstration of a status conferred, and not stolen, and a representation of a New Zealand unafraid to show pride in its indigenous past even as it engaged in diplomatic pleasantry with its colonial one.
6. saveNZ 6

   30 June 2018 at 10:44 am

   This really is shocking. Practically giving away public land for a song and taking away the amenity of neighbouring houses and apartments with sweetheart deals for a developer, while creating a monopoly for boat owners and high prices.

   Similar lack of thinking and deregulation happened in the CBD in the 1990’s, they let these developers do what ever they like with little planning, which has resulted in both owners, developers and banks losing confidence in the integrity of the process and two decades of CBD growth being stopped due to leaky building and values being wiped out by neighbouring builds that are poorly planned in relation to existing buildings, and lack of public walkways and public areas for existing residents to enjoy the city.

   Nobody wants to buy an apartment and have the amenity halved by the council doing a dirty deal with someone and allowing though their ‘relaxed’ RMA interpretations which has been taken to mean anything goes and be as greedy as you can, by environmental lawyers and the courts to wreck surrounding amenity at any time.

   If you get your views wiped out and the apartment buyers continually get screwed either through leasehold (Princess wharf) or Body corporate charges (everywhere) that are designed as a rout or through lack of regulation in surrounding developments (wiping out views/light at the stroke of a council pen).

   Even the banks know apartments are not good investments, they are very reluctant to lend on apartments unless a person has at least 30% deposit. Banks know that the value can be wiped out at any time by the lack of regulation that has developed around apartments and central city and anywhere apartments spring up, from outrageous charges, to bad building design and techniques to lack of planning in preserving existing apartment amenities.

   Even the banks will not approve of wiping out exisiting housing values in the area to help some sort of Phil Goff rout. Where is the public transport and who pays for it? So far not much interest in making the developers pay the public transport costs for more people and instead it goes to the ratepayers who in many cases are being screwed over by bad developers and having to share ever more with the pathetic services offered.

   How can you sell marina land for $5million for 200 apartments & a Marina? Is obscene and against the so called public living around the waterways that should be driving more people to live in those areas.

   When one or two apartment blocks are allowed to steal amenity and devalue everyone else then nobody wants to live there and banks don’t want to lend there, the opposite of what the council should be wanting!

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12079411
   • saveNZ 6.1

     30 June 2018 at 10:59 am

     They fit nearly 9 million into London and they do that through very strong planning laws to protect neighbouring amenity which includes things like privacy (an unknown concept in NZ RMA) and making it difficult for greedy people to get planning through so people feel they can trust their housing is protected. London prior to the worst of the neoliberal dogma believed in social housing being part of new builds of apartments.

     NZ has gone to the opposite degree and now we leaky building, chaos and a lack of trust in the NZ planning and building process due to the profit and deregulation model being the favoured way to develop here. Cheap and deregulated building with high profits and a rip off after service with lease hold and Body corps and future surrounding developments.
   • Ad 6.2

     30 June 2018 at 11:30 am

     Good apartments are selling well still. Crappy ones will lower in value, just as they did in 2005-2010.

     Most of them are right next to ferry terminals. Taxpayers and ratepayers pay for them.

     The need for more housing across Auckland completely overrides the need to protect sight lines, unless they are very well bedded down into the Unitary Plan, such as the Mt Eden sight line.

     The biggest sale of public land for apartments that I am aware of is the Wyndham Quarter, and through Wyndham tank farm. Half of those storage tanks will be gone within 2 years to make way for the Americas Cup. Then they go straight into apartments. They are designed to be 5 metres minimum above expected sea level rise in the coming century. Those apartments start at over $1.5m

     All of this looks like Panuku doing its job: getting the market to build good quality houses in Auckland at low risk to public funding.
     • saveNZ 6.2.1

       30 June 2018 at 11:55 am

       @AD – Clearly does not work that way. Look at London, and Europe, good density planning to protect existing rights means there is integrity in the system. That is not the NZ way, and we are getting boom and bust. Soon there will be a bust, because we develop Ponzi style, the only reason there is no bust is due to immigration. But if they keep that up, we have Asian poverty.

       Also ordinary people can’t afford good apartments. You think like a Natz supporter aka you don’t think teachers and nurses and police should be able to afford a good apartment, let alone one on the waterfront.

       Thinking like that would be ok if you were a Nat, but you are supposedly Labour supporting the ordinary person and not much from the Greens either on this.

       Hence Labour policy, not good for ordinary people. Who now have that petrol tax on top of the fact the apartments springing up for the wealthy earners only or for Ponzi speculation.
       • Ad 6.2.1.1

         30 June 2018 at 12:00 pm

         Whatever an ordinary person is, they will not be buying seaside apartments. The whole of Auckland needs more apartments of all kinds, but you won’t find seaside Kiwibuild apartments and nor would any logical person expect to. There are a few exceptions – such as the Metlifecare apartment blocks in Titirangi over looking the Manukau Harbour, and the Orakei retirement village (now condemned). But in reality it has and will always be the case that a really good beachfront view is beyond the means of anyone except the very rich. And no government is going to change that.

         You just need a good cold drink of reality.

         There may well be a property bust. We’ve had one in 2007, 1997, 1987, and 1977. So who knows. So far pretty good.
   • DH 6.3

     30 June 2018 at 11:48 am

     It’s noteworthy the Hobsonville marina land is leased by the council, presumably at market rates with a regular rent appraisal. It makes no commercial sense to sell land that’s bringing in a rental income which would surely be exceeding the cost of borrowing. It’s also an inflation proofed income.
     • Gabby 6.3.1

       30 June 2018 at 7:00 pm

       Hard to escape the conclusion that someone is building up a favour bank with public land.
   • Wayne 6.4

     30 June 2018 at 11:58 am

     There was similar issue over the sale of the freehold land at Bayswater, which sold for less than $5 million. The reason why the price for the freehold title was so low is because the marina already had a 105 year registered lease on the property with very low rent. The existence of the lease meant the freehold title basically had no value except to the marina owner.

     The Bayswater community is divided on the issue of apartments. Most people recognise that some apartments would be ok, but that 120 or so is too many.

     In terms of the sale and retained values of the proposed apartments at Baywater, with a freehold title they will be more attractive to would be purchasers.
7. Incognito 7

   30 June 2018 at 11:17 am

   In the absence of a dedicated Post for Weekend Reading & Watching I’d like to highly recommend this movie (78 min): Alive Inside.

   It is largely (but not solely) about care for elderly in rest homes (in the US) who are suffering from dementia.

   It won the Audience Award at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival and also featured at the New Zealand International Film Festival in 2014: https://www.nziff.co.nz/2014/wellington/alive-inside/

   I watched it (for free!) on Snagfilms (another recommendation; it also has a category Climate Change & the Environment and much other interesting stuff): https://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/alive_inside

   It reminds of another inspiring documentary Young@Heart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young@Heart_(film)

   Happy watching! You won’t regret it …
8. adam 8

   30 June 2018 at 12:06 pm

   Is it a rush to forget, or are so imbued with a 24hr news cycle we can’t see the tree for the woods?

   Just a reminder that the Palestinian “Great Return Marches” have not stopped. Israel is still shooting people, who at their most stupid do throw stones. Like a stone will be effective against a well dug in and heavily armed military force intent on killing unarmed civilians.

   Mind you, in the worlds biggest open air prison – the occasional rock is all the future you have, that, or a bullet.
9. Bearded Git 9

   30 June 2018 at 12:57 pm

   Great post Red….lots of good info. Party Vote Green and all of this will continue apace.
10. ropata 10

    30 June 2018 at 4:36 pm

    Good stuff from ABC Comedy, In response to an increasingly trump/may like Aussie government
11. Fireblade 11

    30 June 2018 at 6:02 pm

    Property investors having a moan.

    Stuff: Renters are being warned to expect landlords to want better rental returns from their investment properties, in the absence of capital gains. “This can’t continue. If property investments aren’t “washing their faces”, something will have to be done”

    Gee here’s an idea. Stop buying existing homes for capital gain. Invest in businesses that actually manufacture or produce something. Help grow the economy instead of just shuffling more money from renters to landlords.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/105079172/pressure-goes-on-investors-to-ensure-properties-pay
    • RedLogix 11.1

      30 June 2018 at 6:36 pm

      Help grow the economy instead of just shuffling more money from renters to landlords.

      Well if you own the house you’ll be cutting out your bastard landlord (who provides the equity you don’t have, pay the rates and insurance you don’t want to pay and get the maintenance done you either don’t know how to do, or can’t be arsed doing) ….. and shuffle the money direct to the bank.

      The vast majority of us bastard landlords are ordinary working kiwis who lived through a succession of rip-offs and betrayals by our local stock market and finance industry from the 70’s onwards. That burned off so much trust, we just cannot believe anymore.

      For the past ten years we’ve been looking for an alternative commercial investment that would provide a better cash flow; but without finding something that we had much confidence in. In the end I took the hard way out and went overseas, working high stress 70 – 80 hr weeks in crazy remote places to pay the mortgage down.

      There are of course enough bad landlords, and bad tenants, to create plenty of angry stories; but really much of the resentment directed at landlords is misdirected. We’re only one component of a much larger problem with many, many components.
      • Fireblade 11.1.1

        30 June 2018 at 8:55 pm

        I own my mortgage free house, so I don’t have a landlord (or to use your vulgar description “bastard landlord”).
        • RedLogix 11.1.1.1

          30 June 2018 at 10:49 pm

          Well more power to you; but I am puzzled. Unless you were fortunate enough to inherit or be given a free house, I assume you spent some decades paying down a mortgage to a bank.

          In which case why are you so concerned about ‘shuffling money from renters to landlords’, but apparently quite pleased you shuffled even more money to a bank?

          I’m not trying to attack you personally here, I’m genuinely curious about the apparent contradiction between the two attitudes.
      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2

        1 July 2018 at 12:45 am

        (who provides the equity you don’t have, pay the rates and insurance you don’t want to pay and get the maintenance done you either don’t know how to do, or can’t be arsed doing)

        Capitalists never provide anything – they just steal from everyone else.
        • RedLogix 11.1.2.1

          1 July 2018 at 1:40 am

          Fair enough DtB, if you promise never to give me any of you money, I promise never to let you live in one of the homes I built. That way you don’t have to put up with me stealing from you, and I don’t have the risk of you trashing the place.

          If you need a tent for the wintertime, I have a few old ones left over from my early tramping days that should still keep the worst of the rain off. You’re welcome to hang onto it 🙂
          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.1.1

            1 July 2018 at 10:17 am

            1. All the capital was actually provided by the community. It can be no other way. The raw resources belong to the community. The processing of the wood and the glue and the nails were done by the community.
            2. Rent that you demand for living in the house is what’s paying for it thus you didn’t even provide the financial capital.

            Despite these two facts yet you get to call the house yours because of the capitalist system we have that makes such theft legal.
            • RedLogix 11.1.2.1.1.1

              1 July 2018 at 11:40 am

              That argument really does have a problem with boundaries. Why stop and wood, glue and nails? What about that nice laptop you’re typing on? Obviously it too belongs to the ‘community’ and your monopolization of it is also theft. My turn with it now thank you. (What historically happens at this point degenerates very rapidly into mass murder … but I’ll get to that below.)

              The other obvious point to be made is that all that nice collectivist materials (steel concrete and some wood actually) didn’t magically leap into the form of homes all by themselves. It took a number of hard years of planning, funding, and high pressure work to achieve. At a number of points we could have easily lost the lot.

              And finally what you completely miss is the notion of reward for risk. While classic marxism recognises physical labour as the ONLY unit of value, it completely excludes any sense of achievement beyond a pedestrian shoveling of shit for a living. It’s blind to the idea that if you undertake virtually anything worthwhile in life, it innately engages with risk of failure. Unless that risk is compensated for, everyone avoids that possibility and little of new value is ever created. Exactly as observed in ALL the historic marxist experiments.

              Here’s the thing; your argument clearly identifies me as the soviet equivalent class of kulaks; modestly successful farmers who through their skill, entrepreneurial risks and hard work, had accumulated just a little more than the other miserable peasants in the villages. Remind yourself of the consequences of that policy:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

              While clearly I’m a kulak, absolutely I’m not one of the 50 or so hyper-wealthy who have more combined wealth than half the world population. Again you’ve failed to draw a boundary between pretty ordinary working people like me, and the clear-cut outliers whose excess wealth really is a problem.

              The devil is in the detail here; clearly the kind of extreme inequality as embodied by the hyper-wealthy has a corrosive impact on society. But as with Stalin, you’ve targeted us kulaks first because we’re the soft, visible target for populist resentment. Very quickly it degenerates to the condition where if you have achieved anything of value and someone else looks on with envy … it’s off to the gulag with you buster. Yes inequality is a very real and deep problem; but this is the worst possible solution.

              I realise quite well you don’t intend for this to be to consequence of your marxism. We probably share a lot of the same motivations, we’ve both inhabited this socialist space for many years now. But if you think that somehow your version of marxism would turn out any better than all the catastrophically failed versions that have gone before … well I politely suggest you”re wrong. There is absolutely no apriori reason to think that you or any other neo-marxist would not behave exactly as everyone else did when thrust into that long collectivist nightmare … with deceit, betrayal and cruelty.

              About 18 years ago I had the chance to work and travel in Russia for a period. Burned into my memory are shards of the soviet horror; my pathetic words can do no justice to some of the things I saw … and that in their removed, diluted form. As I said above, we share much in common, you’re intelligent and interesting, and have always behaved impeccably here which is why I’m attempting to respond in kind. But you need to think about the boundaries.
12. eco maori 12

    1 July 2018 at 9:47 am

    Good morning Corin from the Q&A show on tv1 on today .
    I don’t think it is fair that the transgender people should be treated any diffidently from Ladys if people are not affecting anyone negatively than they deserve to be treated with respect full stop some people should get a life and stop being so judgemental Eco Maori knows how this type of behavior can affect ones life.
    Peter Gluckman putting fluoride in OUR water is a no brainer lets get on with it and save our mokopunas teeth there is a wealthy organisation that will lose money when we put fluoride in all water supply’s.
    With China influence in Our politics I agree with Bryce Edwards there is know evedince to back this hype from ———– theres a old saying don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
    What about Big business lobbing groups they have a major influence on Our political landscape thats whom we can thank for shonky.
    Ka kite ano P.S Who can we trust on the GE debate these big company’s flogging this horse can not be trusted one thing I see with Democracy is this system pits two groups against each other and this is not a good thing one group will do anything to get in power and the humane lefty’s find it immoral to stoop to those low levels . ???????????????
13. eco maori 13

    1 July 2018 at 10:33 am

    Newshub Nation Lisa that is one phenomenon of the western society charging people / countrys higher interest rates who are the ones who can least afford to pay it and wealthy people countrys very low interest whats with that ??????????????????????????????.
    Chris Labour is right to step in and stop these loan predators not Sharks they don’t deserve the name of one of Tangaroas beautiful creatures this problem affects some of Our Pacific Island cousin the most because some are innocent and vulnerable to deceit with loans as they don’t know how the systems work yet.
    Loyd Why is Nigel Far here flogging the british exit bandwagon the Queen does not have his views on this subject I say Britain pulls out of Europe than that vacuum of influence will be fulled by America so look across the Atlantic and see if you the common people want a society like trump is ruining . Ana to kai ka kite ano
14. eco maori 14

    1 July 2018 at 5:41 pm

    This is why Eco Maori fights of all of Papatuanukus creatures they are the foundations that support Humans life another link that supports my view that capitalism is the destruction of Papatuanukus environment and wildlife and eventually humans
    links below .

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/jan/24/what-if-we-gave-universal-income-to-people-in-biodiversity-hotpots

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2018/jun/28/biodiversity-is-the-infrastructure-that-supports-all-life

    Ka kite ano P.S its good to see that the interest of Aotearoa’s tangata whenua culture is on a high note after 9 years of —————
    • eco maori 14.1

      1 July 2018 at 6:30 pm

      Newshub on tv 3 Many thanks to all the American tangata for protesting trumps immigration policy’s he is just using this to bolster his support who care who he hurts in the process .
      There are many ways one could save on fuel price rising like get a car that has a motor less than 2 ltr a manual car uses less fuel to service your car regularly check tyre presses fortnightly catch a ride to work with work m8s bus trains its not the end of Papatuanuku .
      Those extreme sports shots of wahine gives Eco Maori A sore face ka pai Mana wahine the more publicity wahine get the better its is for te mokopuna’s future is.

      It was a good weekend of sports . Ka kite ano
15. eco maori 15

    1 July 2018 at 8:40 pm

    We don’t need people like this who think just because he new the people/ sandflys who raped and terrified Louise Nicholas when she was a teenager to get into the police commissioners and have them spread the dumb———-views on the rest of the sandflys just because he is waving his tangata whenua card you know my view its not whom you are its what you do that counts to Eco Maori Ana to kai ka kite ano

    https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105108129/louise-nicholas-slams-appointment-of-top-cop-wally-haumaha-for-comments-about-rape-investigation&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjy9Mqevv3bAhUIa94KHX-8CAcQFggIMAE&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=006730714154542492986:oh6vl0ybuqy&usg=AOvVaw1SHb9r-ZX3kgyEc9kVCtmo

    https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105108129/winston-peters-says-inquiry-to-be-held-into-appointment-of-top-cop-wally-haumaha&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjy9Mqevv3bAhUIa94KHX-8CAcQFggFMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=006730714154542492986:oh6vl0ybuqy&usg=AOvVaw3Jro6ovXo9k6t37bEj8Q-I

    Here is what the state navy army police do to a wahine when she reports the offence.

    https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/98443248/officer-hayley-young-speaks-out-about-sexual-harassment-and-rape-in-nz-and-uk-navy&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiGmsbwwP3bAhWMad4KHVQxDF4QFggFMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=006730714154542492986:oh6vl0ybuqy&usg=AOvVaw3E7Oq7xzeXpDyhpxCcrDu3

    P.S I know one thing at least I don’t bring other peoples whano into my causes
    • Fireblade 15.1

      1 July 2018 at 9:47 pm

      Eco Maori. I enjoy reading your comments, you make a lot of good points.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS