by frog
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Morgan Williams, yesterday released Future currents: Electricity scenarios for New Zealand 2005-2050, a new report that looks at the future of energy generation in New Zealand.
In the accompanying media release he describes the two scenarios his report lays out…
One paints a ‘business as usual’ picture dominated by established thinking as more big power projects are built to maintain security of supply.
The other scenario looks at how we can “get more from less” by redesigning the way we use energy for our social and economic advantage. It emphasises small-scale projects close to where the energy will be used and has a strong focus on energy efficiency and smart designs.
Dr Williams says that rather than simply looking at how to generate more electricity from big power projects, we should examine more closely how we can get far more value from the electricity we generate now and from new sources in the future.
That stark choice is remarkably close to what the Greens have been warning about for years. The summary of our energy policy lays out how we think the second scenario can be realised.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Fri, July 29th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Energy, transport, water, junk food, peacekeeping: all Green visons and policies becoming mainstream? Looking good. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm, good to see, as you say, Joy; in the comments to another posting, Craig Ranapia has just commented that Greens haven’t made any real difference in parliament or to policy, whereas Act have made far more. Well, I’m not sure about that, I think much of the Green’s influence in the last few elections has simply been keeping all these ideas in the public mind, even if they haven’t made a huge change yet. The problem is that Greens have to, by nature, sell huge change to a public who are happy with the status quo. It was always going to be an uphill battle…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I read the Technical document and it seemed very good. I noted that as expected Coal generation will be the main source of future electricity capacity. The Greens Energy Policy does not discuss coal. Currently the majority of NZ coal (of which we have vast amounts of) is being used overseas. Many of these countries are not as environmentally aware as NZ and consequently release the numerous coal toxins as well as CO2. The Greens should really be lobbying for Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle stations in NZ so that more NZ coal is used in our electricity generation and less used overseas? That way we can solve our electricity capacity issues and also reduce the amount of coal toxins being released into the environment by overseas purchasers of NZ coal. My only only disclaimer is that these stations not be built in South Auckland as we already have all of the Auckland regional NIMBY’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toa
If you read it thoroughly you’d note that coal is a main source in scenario A, not B, and if you have any understanding of the environmental movement, you know that the use of coal is anathema to us. In other words, you’re trolling
Greens however, will never lobby for the use of coal… anywhere.
Scenario B is the one that the Greens back and is a not unrealistic view of how renewables and conservation can get together to make this country work without burning dead dinosaurs.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Morning BJ,
Unfortunately you have missed my point entirely. In both scenarios NZ coal will still be exported overseas and used by countries (the Third World) that have little/no environment laws. If we use more coal in NZ in the latest eco-friendly designed stations (ICGCC) then we export less overseas to countries with standard coal stations.
In fact by supporting scenario B you inadvertently support all of NZ coal being exported overseas and subsequently more coal toxins being released into the global environment. No I am not being a Troll on the topic but just trying to get a reasonable answer to this, as it seems this issue is being ignored.
Cheers Toa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps if we weren’t grossly subsidising the energy used by large power consumers like Fonterra and Comalco, then the situation would be better.
It seems ludicrous that while consumers pay 15¢ per kWh, that Fonterra can have hundred Megawatt boilers turning milk into milk powder, and pay only 5¢ per kWh. Especially given the world market is awash with milk, and in fact there are governments who pay their farmers *not* to grow milk.
Let’s be clear about that – it isn’t mostly domestic use of power that is fast depleting the Maui gas field.
I’m not saying that we should pull the plug on these industries, let’s just stop subsidising their power use as a first step.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toa
No, I didn’t miss your point. The coal should stay in the ground.
That’s not likely to make the Chinese maker of Aluminium happy, but we can export our Aluminium, refined by electricity gathered from the wind. That’s the point for me… I don’t believe in burning fossil fuels. Not here, not there, not anywhere.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)