Solar Water Heating Programme launched
Jeanette and Energy and Climate Change Minister David Parker launched the government solar water heating programme secured by the Greens as part of the confidence and supply agreement after the last election at Parliament today.
The goal is to double the number of solar water heaters being installed in New Zealand by 2010. This has the potential to save the equivalent amount of CO2 as getting 5000 - 7000 cars off the road, as well, of course, as reducing the power bills of thousands of households.
It’s a five-year programme, with $15.5 million for the first three and a half years. You can read all about it here and here and here.
The launch was celebrated with delicious sunshine cake. Mmm, cake…
Bookmark to:
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
While this all sounds good, it seems more like a continuation of the trajectory of the previous government’s solar water heating scheme, than any step change. I thought that the Greens had had much more ambitious plans for solar water heating.
Looks to me like the realities of the industry and the realities of government have got this one watered down to the point where I am asking myself what difference the Greens have really made.
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Prim - Jeanette explains some of the reasons why the programme is not as ambitious as what the Greens campaigned for in this news story.
Cheers,
frog
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
“This has the potential to save the equivalent amount of CO2 as getting 5000 - 7000 cars off the road”
Hang on - the press release says it will reduce CO2 by this amount assuming the electricity used was generated by coal or gas. Stop me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that only about a third of NZ’s electricity? So the actual likely CO2 reduction is about a third of what you are claiming?
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Sam, sorry that is a little confusing.
November 23rd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
bit of a shame that the announcement will be almost completely ignored in da media due to other news today.
Sam’s point is completely valid, the quote in the PR says:
“This will see approximately approximately 15,000 to 20,000 systems installed by 2010. Assuming this electricity would have otherwise been supplied by coal and gas power stations, the estimated CO2 savings are equivalent to getting 5000 to 7000 cars off the road.”
but as Sam points out 2/3 of NZ electricity is produced from renewable sources and only 1/3 from fossil fuels, therefore to produce an estimate that has such an inaccurate assumption is pretty dodgy. It’s not as if “getting 5000 to 7000 cars off the road” is that impressive anyway.
November 23rd, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Thanks frog for the link. It sounds to me like the Greens didn’t know the industry as well as might be desired, when they made their ambitious announcements at the last election. I think that the policy was still commendable in a general sense, and it is understandable that the party has limited resources. So I have a suggestion below.
I guess this comes back to a point I raised on another thread - as a voter, I’d like to be able to trust that policies are real and deliverable. I know we seem to operate in an environment where politicians make pre-election promises that get broken afterwards, but I think that there might be better ways! I also think that one of the barriers to people voting Green so far is that they might not trust the Greens to govern. Please take my comments as intended to help the Greens!
Now for my suggestion. I have been wondering whether the political system could be changed to get more information out to political parties to help them come up with very soundly based policies. Perhaps there could be some kind of new Parliamentary Commission established for the purpose of highly informed policy making by political parties. It could do some level of research and modelling, and draw on what government departments have done, subject to OIA constraints. It could make its information freely available to political parties.
I think that this type of system might enable NZ to make more rapid progress than the current system. And time looks to be of the essence in dealing with climate change. Under the current system, parties make pre-election promises, get into power, then spend half their terms getting advice from officials before they can decide on any changes to the status quo. I’d like the system to be more efficient than that. It would also improve democracy, I think, if people know what they are really voting for in practical terms.
I’d really like to see the Greens do well. I hope that these comments help.
November 23rd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I rather doubt that large numbers of people will install solar hot water when the estimated payback period is between eight and twenty years depending on circumstances. A copy of the BRANZ report is at http://www.buildingresearch.org.nz/assets/pdfs/Solar-Water.pdf
November 23rd, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Good win, guys. Should form a basis for a proof of concept for a much larger push. Or prove the idea economically unsound. Either way is good.
November 23rd, 2006 at 6:44 pm
and this (much vaunted) $15million programme is spread over five years..eh..?
so..that’s $3 million per year..?
and that’s for …training installers….’promoting’ solar heating..
and most important of all…
the installation of a layer of beaurocrats…to ‘ensure standards are met’..
(god bless the beaurocrats..eh..?..)
sheesh..!..not much money to do all that each year..eh..?
(little drops into a big bucket..eh..?..)
and jeanette said a straight subsidy on heaters ‘wouldn’t work’…
that this ’system’ is ‘much better..’
and that this ’system’ will deliver 20,000 new solar heating systems..
now..i’m no mathematical genius..
but 15,000,000 divided by 20,000 equals $750 per (best case scenario) solar heaters…
so..a straight simple (whopping) subsidy of $500 per unit would have given us 30,000 new solar heaters..
a $375 subsidy would have given us 40,000 new solar heaters..
and a basic..(but still decent) $150 subsidy per heater
would have delivered 100,000 new solar heaters..
so…s.n.a.f.u..for the greens…eh..?
that’s two stinkers you’ve delivered us..in the space of a couple of days..
how the feck can you claim this crock as a success…?
it’s just basically getting 20,000 heaters..when we could have had 100,000
(even a $100 subsidy wd have delivered 150,000 new heaters..!..)
how the feck did you all go through the procedural and mental processes
to conclude..”..gee..this is a ripper of an idea..and a really good/efficient use of $15 million worth of energy..”..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:04 pm
i did say i wasn’t a mathematics genius..
the $15.5 million is over three and a half years…not five..
but my thesis still stands..
this is a gobsmackingly inefficient use of money…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Since only about 35% of Kiwis actually live in homes they own, they’re probably going to have to stretch to find 100,000 home OWNERS who want to invest in this sort of long term thing anyhow Phil.
My letter was in the Dom Post yesterday… neat thing about this government is its insensitivity is compleat. Whack it harder and you just get tired quicker…
respectfully
BJ
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:47 pm
phil - I think that you are right in some ways. I think that the problem is that the industry can’t deliver and install the numbers of systems that you would like to see happening. The industry is too small. As I understand it, there were grants or subsidies back in the 1970s (?) so this struggle seems to have been going on for a long time. I have heard that some in the industry like it small, but this is second-hand anecdote.
It does look like the funding has been increased quite a lot. However, I imagine that most of the funding will not be for installations, but will go into industry development and overhead. I hope it pays off….
In the meantime, Greens please keep it real! And … had you known about the situation years ago, perhaps you could have lobbied govt for these sorts of changes then. (Unless it would not have been worthwhile?)
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
oh mickey, I think the plan takes account of cost-effectiveness and payback periods because it says that the subsidy will only apply for households with large hot water needs (households of four or more), hence they have a shorter payback period.
ah phil, you’re obviously someone who thinks it is better to moan about the darkness rather than light a candle, eh?
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
A little help if you will.
I am in the process (early stages) of building a new home, the architect has suggested solar water heating, now I admit that I know bugger all about solar energy and could do with a few tips.
I admit that I am not that keen purely because every one I have seen is as ugly as sin, but I guess i could be convinced otherwise.
What are the benefits and what is the downside?
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Note that I did not ask anybody here about controlled burn offs!
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Bruv I think mickey had it sorted above. BRANZ are pretty good. EECA have a facts page. There’s also a Consumer report on them.
The key is a roof that gets a fair bit of sun. I suppose they’re extra handy if you’ve got shower users at the end of the day - kids sport, you or your partners training, etc…
Of course a prime benefit is that their energy source is not subject to price increases (yet)… so you’ve fixed part of your electricity pricing for the life of the unit.
They can make mobile masts look like trees. Maybe they can have solar panels look like a 2nd storey… Egad!
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
no stuey..
it’s more a matter of not wanting to burn that (little) candle at both ends…eh..?
y’know..efficient use of limited funds..?..
y’know..making a difference..?
do the math stuey…
and then tell me it’s not inefficient use of those few drops in that big bucket…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
bruv, I’ve never seen an ugly solar water heater panel since they are usually dark and flush with the roof. I think maybe you are thinking of solar-electric panels which is something completely different (shiny silver and sticking up) and not cost-effective or recommended.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
there sure are a lot of great reports on the EECA website, I especially like:
Developing the Market for Larger Scale Solar Water Heating Applications in New Zealand
http://www.eeca.govt.nz/eeca-library/renewable-energy/solar/report/dev eloping-the-market-for-larger-scale-swh-applications-in-nz.pdf
It says the priority actions for developing the larger scale SWH market are:
• Developing a base of credible information
• Effectively disseminating information
• Building expertise in the design and installation of larger scale SWH systems
• Getting SWH to be considered as an option at the start of design and decision processes
• Government leadership through commitments to larger scale SWH where
circumstances are appropriate
• Providing appropriate incentives and financial packages
• Providing surety of SWH performance.
Sounds as though funding some salaries is a necessary part of a successful scheme and that giving all the budget to subsidies would be a disaster.
BTW, bj, that report also says:
“where the buildings are owned by a separate party, and this causes a disconnect between the building owner on whose building the SWH system would be installed, and the beneficiary of the energy cost savings who is the one who pays the energy bills.”
although it says this about Motels and other businesses rather than households.
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:56 pm
so..bottom line..stuey..
weasel words..links..spin & flannel to one side..
you think spending $15.5 million dollars to get (best case scenario) 20,000 solar water heaters is a good deal..?
and an efficient use of those monies..?
eh..?
(are you interested in buying a bridge..?..i ‘ve got a little ripper i could let you have for not that many mill….whaddayareckon..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2006 at 12:17 am
phil, the $15M is being spent on lots more than the 15,000 to 20,000 systems themselves, there is funding of training, information provision, promotion, standards development, R&D funding. i.e. all the things needed for a healthy long-term quality industry
and it is not true that a whole new “layer of beaurocrats” is being set up - the programme continues and enhances the existing work of the EECA.
November 24th, 2006 at 5:26 am
i’ll email you some recent photos of the bridge…(it’s bering painted..don’t you know..)
and hang on..!….i have to re-do my calculations..
we were told 20,000 was the best-case scenario…
but 15.5 mill..divided by 15,000..
is over $1,000 per unit..
whoar..!…eh..?
it just keeps looking worse..eh..?
but carry on stuey..
you do have a historical pattern of ‘toeing the line’..eh..?
no matter what that line may be..eh..?
so..i guess you are to be congratulated for your blind loyalty..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2006 at 7:58 am
how about a new slogan for the greens.?
going on the sec 59 fiasco..
and then this sorry saga..
can i suggest ‘incrementalists ‘r us’…….?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2006 at 9:09 am
If Greens were the major party in Government, I’m sure there would be a much more ambitious energy efficiency programme and section 59 of the Crimes Act would be repealed completely.
But this is realpolitik, Phil. You negotiate the best deal you can get. Neither of the “compromises” you criticise the Greens for are what they would ideally like, but both are a step in the right direction.
The alternative is to disengage completely from anything any Government ever does until the Greens become part of one, and in the meantime make no progress at all towards implementing Green policies. I guess that’s a valid political position, but not one I agree with.
November 24th, 2006 at 9:10 am
phil
surely r&d for local cond. plus swh industry capacity is more important than three years of some entity making a quid on a finite subsidy.
if it were merely a subsidy then some clever bugger(ette) would simply clip the ticket in supplying the the market for three years. “protectionism” went in the 80s.
at the end of three years we’d be back at square one and be in need of a new program to address home energy consumption. maybe at that point a clever party could negotiate a $15.5m package to subsidise shw units…
does the term “sustainability” resonate?
November 24th, 2006 at 10:40 am
no mikey…
at the end of three years we’d have a sh*tload more solar waters heaters installed/operating..
(and hey..!..just quietly..isn’t that meant to be the object of the exercise ..?..)
and some clever bugger(ette) is always going to make a quid..
use that as a reason not to do something..and you would do nothing..
does the term ‘efficient use of limited resources ‘ resonate..?..milkey..?
so you would rather that money was p*ssed away on feeding bureaocrats..(invariably duplicating work already done..’quality control’..give me a fecken break here..will you..
so..we have to duplicate the quality control already done elsewhere..??..)
and the rest of the money given to admen/women..to ‘lunch’ with..?
and hey..!..a small prediction for you….this scheme won’t be as ’successful’ as it is claimed it will be..
which will mean the actual cost per unit will balloon out even more..
(but hey..!..god bless the bureaucrats..and the ad-men/women..eh..?
they have families to feed..eh..?..)
and carry on..!..you lot..!
carry on trying to defend the indefensible..(but careful you don’t put your back out..eh..?..all that twisting and turning isn’t good for the spine..eh.?..)
and this ‘realpolitik’ referred to by toad is interesting..
do you know the real ‘realpolitik’ of this little scenario..?..toad..?
the ‘realpolitik’ is that this baublette is the deal/price for the greens to remain schtum..and not to operate as a ‘real’ opposition party..
that just really compounds how much all this sucks..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Mikeymike
Thanks for that, I guess the best option might be a mixture of gas and solar.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Phil - ‘real’ opposition parties were a creature of FPP - they were based on the ‘if you’re not for them, you’re against them’ mentality. Unlike the Nats, the Greens have moved on from that mentality, and try to work cooperatively with any party on any issue on which there is common ground. Hence the Greens are even working closely with Rodney Hide (and against the Government) on the stadium issue.
The deal the Greens have with the Government is that, in the interests of stable Government, and in return for a few minor policy concessions such as the Solar Water Heating Programme and Buy Kiwi Made programmes, the Greens will not oppose the Government on confidence and supply. It’s not even a deal to support the Government on confidence and supply. The Greens are free to deal with any aspect of Government legislation that is not a matter of confidence or supply on a case by case basis, and have on occasions been sharply critical - not ’schtum’.
And there are no baublettes - Jeanette Fitzsimons and Sue Bradford don’t even get any extra remuneration for being Government Spokespeople in these areas - just extra work. It’s a far cry from Winston flitting around the world as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Sam,
It’s a valid thing to say, just like saying that an extra $10/week is going to give you more spending money - you don’t think of it as going partially towards your fixed expenses.
ie, it will reduce the needs from our “emergency” generation capacity by that amount, and we can scale down the coal burning - a pretty nasty form of power generation, whether or not you buy into the CO2 climate forcing theories.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:45 am
phil
“and some clever bugger(ette) is always going to make a quid..
use that as a reason not to do something..and you would do nothing..”
the reason i refer to (for not simply applying a subsidy) is that shw becomes a sustainable proposition only if the market for them is nurtured. yes phil, sustainability includes the market. the market is there for “clever bugger(ette)s” to make a quid. a “false” market for 3 years is unsustainable.
if i understand the news correctly something is being done. $15.5m is being spent on giving shw a long term view. far from nothing.
the analogy of the kid who eats his lunch on the way to school is valid. the kid is knackered by the end of the day…
November 24th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
While we may actually use less electricity after having installed solar heating, the bill for using the reduced volume of electricity will not come down massively. About 50% of any residential power bill is line charges. Monetary saving can only come out of the remaining 50%.
Real household based monetary saving will only come about if we can get rid of the line charges.
November 24th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
I agree with gerrit about the line charges, that is an excellent point.
As far the fact that landlords wouldn’t get any benefit from solar panels installed on a rental house..that is not quite true.
The landlord can benefit from the increased capital value of the house.
As I understand it, Australia has some kind of housing energy efficiency rating (similar in prinviple to that we see on refrigerators etc) which is apparently now starting to feed directly into housing prices and valuations.
November 24th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
toad..the greens have never operated as a functioning (which dosen’t have to mean..fiercly oppositional) opposition partyl..tho there is room for a taste of that every now and then in an opposition party..eh..?
they have always had this somewhat ’simpering’/gelded role…
and your whmsical musings on this new ideological openess..(u obviously know something the rest of us don’t)..of the greens to working with national/act does come as something of a surprise to longtime observors..eh..?
and if you are into ‘caring and sharing’..parliament isn’t the place to be..
and re the ‘baublettes’..i did call them ‘policy baublettes’..eh..?
so you are just ‘red herring’ it for defending green mps against accusations of personal gain..when no such accusations were made..
(that’s a example of ‘flannel’..eh..?.. )
so..mikey..you agree with stuey about this being a ‘wise’ use of scarce funds..eh..?
you don’t want to consider partnering up with him to buy that bridge i’m flogging..do you..?
and please..don’t ever consider controlling any sum of money larger than a petty cash tin..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
phil - I think that whether it is a wise use of funds probably depends on factors such as (1) whether there is a decent prospect of a larger-scale long term self-sustaining solar water heater industry, and (2) whether the industry could develop itself just fine without this level of government assistance. Presumably officials have looked into these matters; at least one might hope so!
Gerrit’s tariff point looks like a factor to consider. I am not sure that it would have a huge effect on the economics of solar water heating, as SWH is only economic where hot water use is quite high - in which cases the fixed charge will probably be more like 20% (say) of bills. This is just a guess.
Gerrit - if the fixed charge is half your bill, you must be using very little electricity. You might be paying the wrong level of fixed charge. As I understand it, every supplier is required by law to offer a “low user” pricing plan with a daily fixed charge of around 30c per day. I suspect that some electricity companies are not too keen on getting people onto it, but it was worth the struggle for me!
November 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
phil.
a wise spend, yes, b’cos (as i say) i thinking beyond the 3 years is vital.
not sure which bridge you’re on about, but i usually stick to tuesday night down at the social club.
no need to get all snooty. i’m merely stating my case based on a perception of sustainability. you? under your “subsidy” scenario, what would happen after 3 years? what are your thoughts about industry development (eg. stueys comment) - other than slapping the exorbitant beaurocracy tag on it?
anyhow, happy weekends….
November 24th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Hi Bruv,
I can recommend the azzurro evacuated tube collectors, over the conventional flatpanel collectors. Take a look at http://www.azzurosolar.co.nz/hotwater.htm
cheers,
November 24th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Congrats! This is a great initiative. I know some people with solar water heating and it does reduce electricity consumption noticeably.
It is the height of stupidity to create electricity, the ‘highest-quality’ form of energy, then waste it as heat, the lowest.
If 10% of NZ homes could get solar water (especially on the east coast) then it may delay the inevitable coal or nuclear plants that will need to be built.
November 24th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
mikey..you ask what would happen after three years…
i repeat..we would have a lot more operating solar systems..
and you ask what would happen then..?
well…mikey..i am of the full expectation that three years from now we will have far more ‘on the boil’ than just this..eh..?
and that is really an irrelevant question..as far as the efficient use of this 15.5 mill is concerned…
i repeat mikey..
this program gives a $750-$1,000 ’sudsidy/cost’ that goes to bureaucrats and ad-people…
whereas a straight subsidy would put lots more ‘bums on seats’..as it were..
why does that appear to be so hard for you to comprehend..?
hey mikey..if it looks like a turkey..etc etc…eh..?
basically something which could have been effective has…again….been devalued to only an incrementalist gain..(and some p.r. puffery..)
phil(whoar.co.nz
November 24th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
i remember a story (probably fictional) about a group of winemakers who had just produced their first bottle of decent wine for sale. Someone asked them ‘can we buy it at cost?’ They worked out how much they had spent to get to this stage’ and it came to $30 thousand, so they said ‘it cost $30 thosuand to make. we were going to sell it to you for $20, but we’d be happy if you want to pay us thirty thousand.’
The point is that every business has start-up costs, that mean you put in lots of money to produce very little at the beginning, but then when you have produced lots more the cost per unit becomes much less. I think Jeanette’s solar water heating project is like that - you put in lots of money to train installers and otherwise support the development of the industry, and it pays off through the ability to produce lots of units, and install them correctly, in the future. That payback is largely after the end of the subsidy period.
November 25th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Prim, just got our latest power bill.
Mercury Energy $77.31, Vector $43.52, Total $120.83
I was wrong on the 50% line charge. Is closer to 30%.
So solar water heating capital cost repayments will come from savings on 70% of the total power bill.
November 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
phil: “why does that appear to be so hard for you to comprehend..?”
mikeymike and I do comprehend the point you are trying to make, but we disagree with it, and we have given a number of reasons why we think your model is not the best use of resources.
Also, we don’t resort to personal attacks when we disagree with someone.
Could you explain why you think there will be duplication of beaurocracy? The money is going to extend the existing work of the EECA - that is not duplication.
November 25th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
c’mon stuey…
do the math….end of story…
well..stuey..
1st thought to hold….we are told part of this funding is going to fund bureauocracy..
2nd thought…you say it’s not needed because the bureauocracy is already there..
3rd thought..so why..stuey..does this money need to go to them..?
(for such mindless make-work as ‘quality control’ on products that have already passed rigorous standards in countries of origin..etc..)..?
and as for your ’sniffy’ ‘we don’t resort to personal attacks’..
(is that right stuey ..?..is it..?..
do you mean you don’t resort to personal attacks to peoples faces..?
how about behind their backs..?..stuey..?)
careful..!..you might get quoted..!
and b.t.w…..you do know you are on the shortlist for ‘bootlick/butt-kiss of the year’ award..eh..?
to find out how you made that list..you were nominated for your response to russel normans’ first post…
(it was deemed to be sycophancy as an art form..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 25th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
phil
Maybe you could advise me which quality control organisation in China has ‘rigorous standards’ of quality control for solar domestic hot water systems.
Thanks
November 25th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
david r…!
what a racist/xenophobic assumption you assume..!
and did you know most american-made cars can’t be sold in china…because they exceed domestic chinese emmission standards..?
(and i’d bet..ours..eh..?..)
so..pack up yr prejudices..eh..?
and look to your own back yard..eh..?
are you old enough to have previously made such disparaging/racist remarks about japanese-made goods..?
who will be next..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
phil u
Can’t answer the question eh!
You presume that quality control doesn’t need to be redone here as it will be done at source. I question that.
In any event the final efficiency of each individual system can only be assessed after it has been installed as proper installation is important.
I wasn’t aware we had any effective emmission standards for cars.
David
November 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Gerrit - thanks for that info.
I wonder whether you might be better off with the low fixed charge pricing option? I’ve heard that it’s the better value option for households that use less than 8,000 kWh a year; this crossover point might have changed slightly though.
November 25th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
do not feed the trolls … do not feed the trolls … do not feed the trolls
November 25th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
oh ok david…too subtle for you..
i will have another go..
i read your assumption of inferior quality because of chinese manufacture to be offensive and racist…
and like most racism….illigical to boot….
(now..lets try the ‘hold that thought process’..eh.?)
thought number 1….
what if…just what if…(to placate the disquiet of individuals/possible consumers such as yourself…)
we only imported solar heating systems that have already passed the quality control systems/rigours..of..say..the european union..?
would that be ‘good enough’ for you..?
or would we still need to have a layer of quality control beaurocrats doing that ‘make-work’ duplication…?
thought number 2…
imagine the bulk buying discount deal we could have hammered out by cutting out the middlemen..?
and wielding $15.5 million..?.
eh..?
can you see that..?
and passing those savings directly on to consumers/customers..?
and no..you are right..we don’t have ‘..any effective emmission standards for cars’..
yet you sit there curling your lip in contempt at a country that does…?
citing it as a benchmark for inferiority…
(you obviously haven’t been there..eh..?..)
and all this from the position of a country in the process of drowning itself in cowshit..!..and agricultural/chemical poisons..!
a country that only just (for the moment) gets away with some of the environmental offences it committs on itself because of a light population..and geographical isolation..
you haven’t had an irony bye-pass..have you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 25th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
oh stuey..
is that really the best you can do..?
after being (logically) argued to a halt…?
and being shown to be standing naked..?
now..you can call me a contentious/argumentative/contrarian..
but my definition of a troll is one who just posts comments to inflame..(c.f….big bruv..)
i may take contrary positions to the most/mass…but i argue/present the case i am making…
which is what ‘trolls’ do not do..eh..?
as i say..
0/10 in the riposte stakes there..stuey..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 25th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
phil u
Thought 1
I have a locally designed and manufactured solar domestic hot water system.
I was not suggesting that Chinese manufacture was good enough, in fact they offer systems at a range of quality and price points. Your apparent knowledge of quality controls systems was the basis of my original post.
Thought 2
What happens next? You have hammered out your fabulous deal with the 15.5 million. Who installs them? Who repairs them?
And please could we leave out the puerile name-calling.
November 25th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
yes we have installers..
no..we don’t need that money to be fed into a ‘quality-control’ bureauocratic maw..!
have you met stuey ..?..dave..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 26th, 2006 at 12:56 am
phil -
I think that part of the problem is that there aren’t enough installers able to install the sorts of numbers of SWH systems that you would like to see done. I have heard that the industry does not have the capacity to do it. So training is in the package. I can’t comment on the quality of systems themselves.
I imagine that officials, the industry, consumers etc would have canvassed a range of issues - including the ones you raise here - in the recent stakeholder consultation that EECA held this year on SWH. I haven’t checked the EECA website lately; it’s possible that at some stage they may release a summary of submissions and their response to them.
The above said, I sympathise with your sense of frustration. To my mind, the industry could possibly have done more to train new people over the years. I wonder whether some in the SWH industry might prefer to keep supply of installers tight. It seems annoying that taxpayers have to fork out $$ to get anything done about it, when as I understand it the SWH business is quite lucrative. I’ve also noted above that I think that the Greens need to show that they are “in touch with” the industries that they profess to be interested in at elections.
November 26th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Any competent plumber who has done a bit of roofing (or vice versa) can install solar water heating systems. So the training schemes should enable supply to ramp up pretty quickly.
What about demand? Building awareness, combined with increasing the subsidy to home owners “(The finance assistance available from the Government for purchasing solar water heating systems will increase from $300 to $500 from February 2007″) seems like a fair strategy.
In other countries, they take a simpler approach : a simple tax rebate, which enables people to make the decision, and industry just follows to meet demand. I think this is what Phil is advocating. However, NZ is a special place : too small a market for capitalism to work properly, according to the specialists… lots of perverse effects can occur in a subsidy-only setup.
So it looks to be a well-designed package to me.
November 26th, 2006 at 5:52 am
y’see alistair…
i would disagree with your assesment that we ‘are too small..’
i would submit our smaller size empowers us to
‘make great changes’….
and to become a ‘world leader’ in the major innovations that are required..
and that that size is a major advantage that we have….
in that we don’t have the opposite (in this case)of the advantages of ‘economies of size/scale facing other larger more populous countries…
so….(as alistair confirms) we’ve established that we don’t need to ‘gear-up’ to train an army of installers..
and we have established that we don’t need a beaurocratic make-work duplicating of ‘quality-control’..
so..therefor my main criticsms of this turky are..well…q.e.d…eh..?
it is an ill-concieved and inefficient and ill thought out ’solution’…
and methinks it gets a ‘could do better’..and should be sent back to the drawing board..
‘have another go..!..eh..?..’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 26th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Phil - I think the “win” is that any money at all is invested in this program. Given that a SWH installation attracted zero, nada, nichts prior to this act, that’s a fair stride off of zero. So while I agree with you about the inefficiency I accept that it is the only way legislation comes about.
Inefficient? Sure… this is New Zealand. I have to be cynical about this sort of thing, but I also have to recognize that there is an advantage to getting started.
I disagree with doing these things through tax. The tax system is a TAX system and while it looks easy to include all manner of things in it, each change in taxes introduces a distortion and a further requirement for the IRD to play policeman. This does not, as can be seen in the US experience, scale up well. To call the US tax system a maze is to understate the problems it has by several dimensions.
In 2002, it is estimated that individuals, businesses and non-profits spent 5.8 billion man-hours complying with the federal income tax code, which is the financial equivalent of imposing a 20.4-cent surcharge for every dollar that the income tax system collects.
As far as capitalism goes we ARE isolated and small and anything we take to market in other countries has to compete with stuff made locally (there) with a much bigger market and a much smaller transportation cost. Those are big hurtles for capitalism. We have to be that much BETTER at whatever we do to earn a crust that the local market, small as it is, is almost all we have.
Our economy will in future, benefit from being based on renewables but the price of oil and CO2 is not yet high enough to make that clear. This is a preparatory step and will (I hope) grow and become more accepted.
respectfully
BJ
November 26th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
BJ - the setup of this current SWH scheme is very similar to a scheme that has been running for years, including under the previous government. They seem to keep “launching” it periodically, but it’s basically been the same scheme since 2002 or 2003, just ramping up by increments from year to year as demand increases.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Just a quick thought, the amount of carbon saved is going to come out of the gas and coal fired systems as whatever we save comes off the last generation that happens so the 1/3, 2/3 theory of savings is not valid. The govt numbers are therefore right. It will help stop the coal and gas power plants starting.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Jeanette caught up with the comments on this thread the other night, and wanted to respond. Here’s what she says:
“The carbon savings of solar have been calculated using the Government’s standard calculation, which assumes that if you need less energy you don’t turn off the hydro stations and waste the water, you run Huntly a bit less on coal, or the gas stations a bit less. We are running Huntly almost continuously these days so it is fair to say the energy saved is almost all coal.
It is a fair point whether the money would have been better used just giving higher or more subsidies. The answer is no because:
- without standards, quality control and performance measurements of each system we could have subsidised a lot of poor performing systems that saved little carbon, energy or money for consumers. And yes, products made in China, EU or Australia will have to undergo testing here, or have undergone testing shown to be equivalent in their home country.
- without more training courses and incentives for training, there would not have been enough trained installers to put in systems properly, poor installations would continue, corners be cut and even very good products would not work well
- without developing a way of relating performance to price and subsidising only those that would give a reasonable payback, there would have been no price discipline on suppliers and the subsidy could have gone into their pockets rather than the customer
- the point of subsidies is to help an industry become economic and stand on its own feet. I don’t believe taxpayers should pay for subsidies forever. If we don’t build the industry over the next five years the subsidy can never be withdrawn (and applied to the next sustainable technology we need to help) and the price will never come down. the industry would crash in five years when the subsidy is withdrawn and we would have achieved nothing.
- the contestable innovation fund of nearly $1m has the potential to leverage new ideas that will get more systems installed - eg leasing proposals. We don’t know what enterprise is out there till we encourage people to have a go.”
November 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
I have never read such drival!! When will you green guys realise that global warming is not man driven. Al’s movie may make great theater but go find the REAL science. Don’t belive that because some one is not a global warming beliver they must be in the pocket of the oil industry.
This global warming stuff will with in a decade be proven as nothing but scare mongering. I only hope that in NZ we haven’t driven our economy into the ground before then.
Go read your history and get real you bunch of crazies
November 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
greetings troll, well keep believing what you believe and we’ll see won’t we.
on jeanette’s response - nice one frog! nice one blogs! reinvigorating democracy!
November 29th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
How droll, another troll thinks he understands science better than scientists do
No talent, no substance, not even a theory. Tsk…
I have a good feeling about having Jeanette as co-leader. Even better now.
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 7:17 am
bj: “No talent, no substance, not even a theory. Tsk…”
Not very Green of you! Tsk! Tsk! …
November 30th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Eredwen - I’ve never equated “green” with “turning the other cheek”… and I abhor incompetence. Whatever else he was, Mouldwarp was a COMPETENT troll… this guy… [bill_the_cat]pppphhhhhhttt! [/bill_the_cat].
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 7:38 am
BJ
A couple of questions if you do not mind.
Why do the greens insist on having co-leaders?
Does one have to buy into the total green package to be a supporter?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Big Bruv -
The co-leader thing grew on me when I encountered it. The fundamental biological differences and differences between the way I think and the way Jeanette or Eredwen thinks, are not ignored in this party. They also seem to have been recognized by the Maori. It is I think, better, but that is opinion. Human society being made up of these two genders, there seems to be an advantage in reflecting it in some manner in the representative party structure. Someday the social sciences will tell us what that advantage is and why it exists… or not. I have found “social science” to be something of an oxymoron.
As for buying into the total package? I’m pretty sure you can’t be a member of another party at the same time as you’re a Green. I don’t buy the total package in a lot of ways, but the parts that bug me are less important than the parts that I feel are needed, and I’ve found that the party is able to tolerate me. The party could use more balance in some areas but there’s going to be a defense policy in due course, and it isn’t unilateral disarmament as some would have you believe. I’ve got a finger in that. The tax policy is interesting, though I have yet to comprehend how to get there from here without a planned set of intermediate adjustments. The most compelling argument against being Green is that the party seldom manages a useful level of pragmatism.
Heaps of stuff, but for me the underlying issue is the environment and my children’s future. The long view. I look further out than a lot of people… and I think most Greens take that long view, and no major party really seems to embrace it the same way.
The preceding is an unpaid political advisory and is consequently worth exactly what you paid for it
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
we don’t “insist” on having co-leaders, we just happen to like and prefer it. As well as different opinions, co-leaders also have different skills, and it splits the workload.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Stuey
But would it not be better to just elect the best person to do the job?
To have one male and one female is just PC rubbish really.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
There were some informal discussions within the Green Party after Rod Donald died about whether to retain the co-leadership model, and if it were to be retained, whether there should be one co-leader of each gender.
No formal remits came forward to change from the male/female co-leadership model, which indicates most Greens felt that model works well.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Big bruv asks whether it would be better to just get the best peson for the job. That would be right if what we were looking for was one person to do one job in isolation. But it is a team effort, and what is needed is the best combination of people to fit in with the team.
The Green Party have decided that part of this combination is that one must be male and one female. I am not sure whether I agreee with this or not, but it is a perfectly plausible hypothesis, and I would certainly be interested in reading evidence both for or against it if anyone has some.
As for the other question of whether you have to buy the whole package, well I am a Green party member but I don’t necessarily agree with absolutely everything they stand for. The same I am sure is true with members of other parties. You just need to decide whether you agree with enough of the principles to be comfortable with joining.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
BJ -
As I understand it, Mouldwarp’s most recent line of arguments boiled down to saying that the scientific establishment is in error, and possibly corrupt.
Changing views are perhaps more the norm for science than the exception. Science evolves; theories are overtaken, flaws in experiments are exposed. The foremost scientists at leading institutions are not immune from this.
So I read your statement above that “… another troll thinks he understands science better than scientists do” with that grain of salt in mind.
I can offer no opinion on the quality of the science currently - but in the meantime prefer that humanity adopts a precautionary approach to the maintenance of a climate suitable for life as we know it. Better I think to deal with our CO2 emissions, than assume that everything will be OK under business as usual.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Prim - Mouldwarp was competent as a troll, which is to say he could argue his position and he engaged us in endless debates. This guy was merely doing a drive-by. That’s all I was aiming to say.
As for the science, the things that happen in science that get so much agreement and generate so much controversy tend to be the ones that disturb deep seated believes. Evolution which steps so hard of the toes of some people’s religion is one of them. Global warming is another… but the belief structure being stomped on seems to be socio-economic. “Growth is good” , and “Capitalism is Democracy” confusions seem to prevail. The levels of agreement in the science are however, reaching comparable levels. Arguing against Anthropogenic Global Warming in the face of the current evidence is almost impossible.
I defer to the many many organizations of science that have vetted the many many sources of data. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’ve made a nasty bet for ourselves. The question is not whether we get hurt it is the degree to which we get hurt.
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Yes BJ, those arguments of MW’s that I followed appeared deeply flawed.
I prefer the opinions of mainstream scientists at this stage!
November 30th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
palegreen asked us to read some real science - here’s some:
http://www.energybulletin.net/23044.html
Washington, DC — In an unprecedented action, representatives for more than 10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are calling on Congress to take immediate action against global warming, according to a petition released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The petition also calls for an end to censorship of agency scientists and other specialists on topics of climate change and the effects of air pollution.
The petition stresses that time is running out to prevent cataclysmic environmental changes induced by human-caused pollution and urges Congress to undertake prompt actions.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Stuey: The letter referred to re energybulleton was sign by 22 representatives of unions. You can bet that all 10000 members of those unions do not agree. Same as the unions in NZ support labour and we know that all their members don’t vote labour
The letter you refer to doesnt state that the view is the view of all members. Of those who signed one is a Phd, who knows the expertise of the others for all we know they may just be union guys!
For me this is typical of the whole global warming thing. That is taking a statistic and using it to mislead, they may represent 10000 scientists, but 10000 scientists didn’t sign their letter.
The climate is no doubt changing but there is certianly no conclusive evidence that it is due to man! The climate is in constant change. The warmest year on record since the little ice age is 1998, nearly ten years ago, almost a decade! Where are those who claimed the huricans of last year was global warming? There was almost no hurricans this season!
December 1st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
hi palegreen you are of course right about that reference, as soon as I had posted it I realised that it was representatives of 10000, not the 10000 themselves. I was fooled by the headline and byline and didn’t read properly. ah the power of the media, eh?
meanwhile you say ‘no warming since 1998′ that is of course because 1998 was an anomaly, if you look at the trend as a whole, i.e. all the other years, you can clearly see the upwards pattern, there’s a good graph at the top of:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
of course there will be variability and randomness, the climate and weather is random, it is noisy data - but the trends are clear.
sooner or later there will be another random year that beats 1998.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
bj:
You said:
“Eredwen - I’ve never equated “greenâ€? with “turning the other cheekâ€?… and I abhor incompetence. Whatever else he was, Mouldwarp was a COMPETENT troll… this guy… [bill_the_cat]pppphhhhhhttt! [/bill_the_cat].”
I reply:
That may be so, but to answer at a similar level of disrespect to the person one is criticising, does nothing to maintain or improve the level of debate that makes frogblog “different” and therefore inclusive.
Ignoring, or replying in a neutral tone, or even briefly explaining what would be needed for an opinion to be taken seriously, does, at the very least, not escalate the aggressive, “one up”, “put down” posturing that is so common on blogs in general … (a VERY testosterone ridden medium in my experience !! )
Also, I suspect that “palegreen” is young …
When I identify myself as a Green I am conscious that I have a responsibility to the Greens in general to always behave accordingly
I notice that our inimitable “bj” likes to get into the “cut and thrust” of blogs …
“You can take the boy out of NY but you can’t take NY out of the boy” ???
“respectfully”!
eredwen
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Eredwen - I seriously considered not saying anything, because there was no content to which to respond. Also because I doubt that palegreen stuck around. Which is what I mean by a driveby.
What I don’t have on this forum, which I would vastly rather have, is the ability to bar from my screen, posts from authors who have proven to be useless wastes of my attention.
However, I don’t regard “Green” here on frogblog as being accepting of insult. I contained in my response the point that there was no content to answer. That’s as much as he deserved. Being “Green” doesn’t mean I will turn the other cheek or attempt to raise the tone every time we are insulted.
We often do so, but I don’t think you should expect it.
respectfully
BJ
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:47 pm
eredwen - I agree.
So what if palegreen didn’t drag out comprehensive detailed technical arguments, a la Mouldwarp? BJ, sounds like you’ve enjoyed debating with MW lately. However, not everyone has the same priorities and time availability as MW. People should still be able to express their opinions.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:30 pm
bj said: “Being “Greenâ€? doesn’t mean I will turn the other cheek or attempt to raise the tone every time we are insulted … ”
eredwen replies:
There are gentle but assertive ways of not accepting insult etc etc.
All this (storm in a teacup) discussion is about:
bj saying: “No talent, no substance, not even a theory. Tsk…�
and eredwen replying (playfully): “Not very Green of you! Tsk! Tsk! … ”
(26N0V 10:12pm and 27 Nov 07:17am)
(I now WISH I had not submitted to the whim! … It was a “throw away” response in reaction to bj’s EXCELLENT comment which unfortunately included the words “No talent” (an “unknown” and therefore a potential insult).)
I strongly believe that when one identifies oneself as “a Green”, or uses the word “we” when talking about the Greens, that claimed “ownership” requires the responsibility of Green behaviour at all times …
What we do matters … (just as “every vote counts”!)
Kia ora!
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Prim
I don’t particularly enjoy Mouldwarp, but he is a competent troll. I was commenting on that level. Which is not the same as being pleased to answer him. Nor do I regard allowing people to express their opinions as any reason to suppress my own.
Which means I am not always going to “make nice” and maybe this is a New York attitude or a “male” attitude or both, it is my attitude.
Sorry if it offends sometimes, but not sorry enough to become someone else.
respectfully
BJ
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Eredwen - I may wish I had not yielded to the temptation to take a casual swipe back at the casual swiper… (refer “Dora the Explorer) of time and space on this blog, and I respect your opinion but I don’t agree in this case.
I aimed to insult palegreen. No doubt at all. I didn’t much care that he called us all a name… what I found incompetent was that there was no reasoning at all in his post. It wasn’t a competent attempt to troll. It was only a driveby.
sigh…
I will not change. I do not give free passes to every non-participant who happens to feel like dropping some insult in my inbox. If there is a shred of value, I can respect the person I am disagreeing with. My long posts with BigBruv are a case in point… I don’t beat people up just for showing up with a disagreement.
I apologize to you now, even in advance, for I will probably offend that highly tuned sensibility of yours in future as well… but I do not think I should change any part of the package at this late date.
BJ
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:50 am
That’s fine bj !
However, what you call my “highly tuned sensitivity” is the reaction of a Kiwi, born and bred, and that of a teacher of “effective” communication.
(I’m sure you must realise that you live in a different culture here! … and that applies to the language we speak as well.)
There are male contributors on frogblog with (Kiwi) communication skills worth noting (emulating?) They manage to be assertive and direct without any risk of giving offence to “sensitive” Kiwis. (Alistair, fastbike, kiore1, stuey, toad … to name but a few.)
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Well, BJ, that was certainly some (non)-apology!
Why did you come to NZ? For the relaxed lifestyle, perhaps?
When in Rome ….
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Prim
I came here for my kids sake. Me, I’m more relaxed tense.
BJ
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:59 pm
BJ
Don’t worry about upsetting the natives, one of the worst things about my fellow countrymen is their inability to take any form of criticism even when it is constructive.
I often cringe at how insecure we are as a nation, I would wager that you are still asked “how do you like NZ” by strangers, to answer in any other way than “It is the greatest place on earth” is seen as some form of treachery.
We are a nation in desperate search of a culture and recognition, again you can witness this when ever some third rate actor or washed up Muzo comes to town, the poor buggers have not even made it through customs when some TVNZ bimbo will shove a mic in their face and ask “how do you like NZ”
Another classic example of this is our insistence in performing a haka at the drop of a hat, many here seem to Labour under the misapprehension that the rest of the world likes the bloody thing, to them the Haka is some meaningless rain dance, we are bloody obsessed in forcing the Maori culture down the throats of all and sundry, witness the petulant and embarrassing display by the All Blacks last week as evidence of this.
One day we will sort out what our culture is all about, until then we will have to suffer with the PC left insisting that we (and the world) all embrace the Maori culture as if it represented every single one of us.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Big Bruv
Prim and Eredwen are friends. They are trying to help me to fit in, and that’s OK. You’re OK too. I just don’t do things the way they do, and they like to dig at that once in a while. Which is also OK.
I haven’t treated anyone in NZ to real New York argument styles and I think that’s probably something best left undone. I prefer civilization.
I just have lower standards than some people here
respectfully
BJ
December 4th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Well said bj!