National’s energy policy throws consumers to the wolves
The more I read it, the angrier it makes me. The National Party Energy Policy makes it crystal clear that consumers will be left entirely to the whims of the pseudo-market.
With the likely destruction of the Electricity Commission and the gutting of the RMA, anyone will be able to build pretty much anything they want, anywhere, as long as it uses natural gas which we haven’t found yet, but which National will subsidise searching for. Jeanette summed it up as a “drill and hope” policy. I have quoted much of her release in my last post.
This means completely cutting all the Energy Efficiency programmes that the Electricity Commission (EC) manages and pays for, which are targeted at big business. Now, some may say that I am not a fan of big business. However, the assistance they get from the EC is paid for by themselves through a levy. That means businesses, which are inherently inefficient, will not get the help they need to find all the energy efficiency savings that are staring them in the face.
A typical audit for these businesses finds cost-effective savings of nearly 30%. After they capture that, follow up audits usually find a further 20% in cost-effective savings. Why would you kill a money spinning scheme like this, which raises productivity and profits? Just for ideological spite. The result is that we will need more generation to supply all that wasted energy. We will all pay for that and our security of supply will be worse off than now.
Next come the household consumers. The EC makes sure that we have enough generation and enough transmission to keep the economy going without breaking the budget. It was created because the National Party’s so called electricity reforms of the ’90s actually gave generators an incentive to build less and charge more. Thus, our higher prices are, as National claims, in part the result of capacity constraints. However, National’s policies are to blame, not the EC.
The EC was created to fix that problem and it is working. Now National wants to ditch the EC. Without the EC, we would have had blackouts this winter. They are the ones that made sure we had enough generation to cope. And it worked!
Then there is their false promise of a renewable future, all the while making firm financial commitments to a gas-fired future. Very disingenuous.
Oh, well. Same old failed policies of the past. No surprise there. The wolves will be circling around the carcasses after another round of National Party ‘reforms’. Do voters really have such short memories?
August 14th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
No bites from the Nattyboys here? Guess that means they really don’t have any arguments of rigour to put up against your very coherent analysis of the Nats’ energy policy.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Why bite Toad?
We know the Frog and the Greens in general are anti business and pro the RMA, there is nothing new in that.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I am surprised there isn’t more of a move towards personal electricity generation in NZ. I am staying in Adelaide at the moment - one of australia’s “solar cities”. There is a real effort to get people to install their own solar PV system helped by federal (and state i think) funding, and it seems to be a popular scheme.
A great start is the solar hot water heating systems but we should be seriously looking forward towards this type of system (possiby in conjunction with roof mounted wind turbines?) not backwards at fossil fuels.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Citing reliability as a reason for having coal power stations is nonsense. The huntly coal power station cannot operate at even just 50% of its capacity during the summer. It needs cooling water from the waikato river and it can only operate at a maximum of 25% of its capacity during dry summer months. Along with that half the coal is imported from indonesia. It is railed in from the port of tauranga after arriving by ship. Seeing as national seems to hate the railways so very much I wonder how on earth they’re planning to bring in the required vast amounts of coal that only a railway can carry.
Gas turbine is better, but not good. Not even close. Simply put a combined cycle gas turbine is the least terrible form of fossil fuel, however it has the added problem of sourcing the gas. Importing it is even more stupid. Not only will driving a car be dependant on more imported fuel but so will electricity. I expect to see massive price rises if any more gas turbine power stations are built unless they are peak loaders only but from what I see of nationals policy it appears they want to build baseload power stations, which is utterly stupid.
The greens don’t get away easy either. The protest of various hydro schemes has played its part in the current situation. Project Aqua is/was for some bizarre reason hated by the greens. It would have provided for 530 megawatts of power, or about half the power of huntly coal power station. Enough to stop importing coal from indonesia. Even better is that it would have only covered 9% of the land are as the Benmore hydro dam while providing the same amount of electricity. I think if the choice is between a hydro dam and fossil fuel I choose hydro.
Now it is looking likely we will get a national government, so we’re all screwed.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Yeah, but Frog, do you really think, come november, you will still be in power? People are hurting, cute green policies are fun when you have disposable incomes, but as soon as the pain comes, you will see where people vote. Green politics, much like student politics is easily outgrown when you are in the real world..
August 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
>>No bites from the Nattyboys here?
We want more power, cheaper, and need security of supply.
The Greens think more power is evil.
Therefore, it is impossible to have a rational debate with the Greens about increasing power generation.
What else is there to say?
August 14th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
No, BluePeter, the Greens have no problem with more power, We do, however, have a problem with wasting what power we generate - hence we support energy efficiency programmes.
And if you want it cheaper, and to have security of supply, you have to look to renewable sources. Because, guess what, finite resources eventually run out, and as they are depleted they both increase cost and threaten security of supply.
Guess you’ve struck out on all three counts there BP.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Toad
We have at least 150 years worth of coal, I would say that we can put off the renewable search for a while yet, it also make no difference at all if that coal is burnt here or China.
Besides, wind turbines are ugly as hell.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
And we have one hundred months to start reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
BB, you are only correct in that regard if you deny the science re anthropogenic global warming (which I gather you do).
But if you are wrong, and I’m confident from the science that you are, we’ll be up to our necks in the brown smelly stuff long before the 150 years you refer to is up.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Why one hunderd? Why not 99, or 100? Seems like another chicken little fable.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
george
“And we have one hundred months to start reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”
Or what???
August 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Toad
“BB, you are only correct in that regard if you deny the science re anthropogenic global warming (which I gather you do)”
I would not deny science if it were conclusive and plainly that is not the case, lately there has been somewhat of a move away from the “the end is near” hysteria among some of our scientists (there is a link to this Toad I just cannot find it)
Anyway, it is not so much the science I am suspicious of more the reasoning or motivation behind the movement to mass hysteria, I have long suspected that the climate change con is simply the latest Trojan horse the left have decided to use in their struggle to destroy capitalism.
But you knew all that anyway
August 14th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
>>finite resources eventually run out
There’s no getting you round to the idea that technology moves forward, is there.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
>>Or what???
They’ll look silly.
Sillier, actually.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Read a good article in the Guardian recently.
Sums up the problems I have with the tired, hippy60s Green movement. They might be right about the problems (might), but wrong about the solutions:
“Actually, it wasn’t the green movement that alerted us to the dangers of climate change, it was scientists. Large sectors of the green movement actually have their origins in a quite different body of thinking. They are to be found in the writings of those hostile to modern industry, which was seen as destroying the integrity of nature - essentially a romantic, conservative reaction to industrialism. This threat explains why so many greens are either hostile to science and technology, or at least ambivalent about them. The green movement developed around the idea of the conservation of nature in the face of the advance of human technology. The very imagery of “green” - a return to nature freed as far as possible from human tampering - is wrong. There can be no going back to “nature”, since “nature” no longer exists, at least so far as climate is concerned - we are living in a world in which human influence is everywhere. Science and technology have to be a large part of our responses to climate change.”
August 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“The EC was created to fix that problem and it is working. Now National wants to ditch the EC. Without the EC, we would have had blackouts this winter. They are the ones that made sure we had enough generation to cope. And it worked!”
If the Electricity Commission hadn’t been neutralised, then we would have had the following happen in the near future:
It is October 23, 2011; masses of tourists are boarding a fancy new electric train to make their way to Kingsland, when suddenly, the train comes to a stop. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Auckland has had another power cut and that has meant that the electrification scheme that Aucklanders paid hundreds of millions for is useless. Due to the constant threat of rolling blackouts, the ARC sells its EMUs to Brisbane and brings back diesel trains - after all, diesel trains wouldn’t come to a sudden halt when the lines south of Auckland hit capacity and see Auckland come to blackouts at least once a week.
Of course, without the RMA and its NIMBY clauses, we would have had things like wind farms near Waiuku to deal with the power crisis threat. Now, we don’t have those wind farms, because the horses get scared. Give me a break; screw the horses.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Big Bro,
You wrote: “I would not deny science if it were conclusive and plainly that is not the case, lately there has been somewhat of a move away from the “the end is nearâ€? hysteria among some of our scientists”
Here are my questions to you:
1) Which scientists are you referring to?
2) When would you be convinced that humans are causing global warming:
a) When climate scientists claim there is a 50% chance humans are
causing the warming we have seen in the last 50-100 years;
b) 75% chance …
c) 90% chance …
d) 95% chance …
e) 99% chance …
f) You would never be convinced by what climate scientists say
August 15th, 2008 at 12:22 am
BB, Where on earth do you get the idea that “it also make no difference at all if that coal is burnt here or China.”?
August 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Planned projects here…
http://www.stoprodneypowerstation.org/documents/Planned_Generation_Pro jects.pdf
Consents granted to:
Hydro: 17, 16 = 33MW
Geothermal 220 (’called in’), 23, 90, 132, 15 = 480MW
Gas: 200
Wind: 225, 30, 46, 1.8, 240, 102 (’called in’), 48, 20, 84 = 796MW!
Total 1509MW consented or called in, which I think is just as good (?). There are a lot more ‘under appeal’ etc..
August 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Name me a physical resource that has ever run out.
The stone age ended but not because we ran out of rocks.
Age of sail ended but not because we ran out of wind.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am
The moa?
August 15th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Try trees, Owen, on Rapanui.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
“..Owen McShane (9:47 am): Name me a physical resource that has ever run out…”
try the many species now ectinct..
..you could also consider spending some time looking at the ruins of failed civilisations/societies..
..eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
i spose we could have all asked Owen to be more precise in his terms, but that wouldn’t be much fun now would it
August 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
clean air..?..clean water..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
owen has a very narrow/tunnel -like perspective..
he is/has been also a receiver of funds from the exxon-mobil-funded climate-change denial front-groups..
..(as he peddles that message..)
..so..i mean..as a proven oil company/climate-change denial pimp..
..why should we pay any heed at all to anything he says..?
(cover your eyes..!..joy..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
BP
“This threat explains why so many greens are either hostile to science and technology, or at least ambivalent about them.”
Not such a great Guardian article after all if that’s it’s best conclusion in the face of the evidence that Greens around the world have been at the forefront of pushing for renewable energy technology, clean transport technology, green architecture, energy efficient whiteware, non-toxic agriculture (yep, that involves science and technology as well) etc.
The real issue is about sustainability i.e. are the techological solutions one is looking at appropriate and sustainable. If not, how can they be made to be?
Being anti-GE or anti-fossil fuelled power stations is not, IMHO, due to a hostility to science and technology but a well-placed concern that technologies be appropriate to the aims sought and sustainable for our environment-dependent lifestyles.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
How about a compromise!
We ban ALL carbon based new generation capability, but mandate that wherever a non-depleatable energy source (e.g. wind, wave, wate) can be used economically resource consent WILL NOT BE REQUIRED to establish the associated tgenerating capability.
What this means, is that it a 500 turbine wind-farm on the Makara hills is economically viable it gets built, and people work their way around the disruption. If there is a predicatble impact on peoples’ personal economies through lower house values, the business case has to take into account the purchase of all properties at pre-announcement prices by the investor, with them having the ability to demolish the properties, or sell at whatever price the market will pay. (Worth noting that houses next to runways still get boiught and sold!)
How does that stack up against renewable energy source policies?
August 15th, 2008 at 11:32 am
get responses by email
August 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
BluePeter,
“Sums up the problems I have with the tired, hippy60s Green movement.”
Please stop characterizing all Greens as hippy60s who are hostile to science and technology. It’s untrue and unfair.
The Green movement has many strands. One of the strongest is a scientific strand based around the cold hard logic of limited resources and exponential economic growth.
I’m a Green with a MSc. There are quite a lot of us with post-grad degrees in science. There are also a lot of us working in technology firms.
It is true the Green movement also includes an anti-industrial strand - IMHO they are the intellectual heirs of the Morris “Arts & Crafts” Aesthetic movement. But (a) that’s not incompatible with the scientific strand and (b) that’s not all there is to the Greens.
I joined the Green Party after reading in a Sunday newspaper Augie Auer’s press release about how anthropic global warming was a myth. His claims disagreed with things I’d heard so I got curious as to who was right. I looked stuff up, traced his sources (he didn’t give references but it turned out he was quoting a guy called Fred Singer and Singer did), and I built a little math model of what he was saying. When I’d crunched the numbers I decided that the world needed to be protected from such misleading and deceptive pseudo-science. So I joined the Green Party.
I’m no romantic. I joined the Greens because I’m a cold-hearted realist with a science background who can do the maths and who is concerned about what kind of world we’re going to leave for my kids.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“..Owen McShane (9:47 am): Name me a physical resource that has ever run out…â€?’
Owen, if you are honestly interested in this (as opposed to merely tryng to score points) then I suggest you read Jarrod Diamond’s book “Collapse”. It’s a study of various collapsed civilizations.
They *all* ran out of one or more physical resources.
Trees and agricultural land being the two key ones. Deforestation and salinifaction due to over-irrigation were common civilization-killers. Then there’s annihilation of fisheries stocks.
Of course usually it’s not about completely exhausting a resource. It’s about using up so much that the scarcity of the resouce becomes a disaster. Peak Oil isn’t about us running out of oil. It’s about oil supplies dwindling.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The reason that NZ flirts with shortages every summer is not surprising. The electricity supply now operates as a pseudo-market where security of supply is only an issue for this half hour, not for the next six months.
The Nats are a bit crazy on this one. The real problem will be that should there be more power thermal stations built, they will mostly be gas fired, and then our electriity will be subject to the same lunacy the other countries face, like a 35% price increase in one year.
The best thing to do with electricity would be to include it as a resource in the RMA, so we can decide as a country how we want to divvy out our juice.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
BluePeter Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
> Large sectors of the green movement actually have their origins in a quite different body of thinking. They are to be found in the writings of those hostile to modern industry, which was seen as destroying the integrity of nature - essentially a romantic, conservative reaction to industrialism. This threat explains why so many greens are either hostile to science and technology, or at least ambivalent about them.
But it doesn’t explain why a lot of us are not hostile to science, and use science to decide whether any given technology is a good idea or not.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Damn NIMBY’s, we have plenty of windmills here in the manawatu, enough to generate several times our cities needs, I can see them all over the hills around palmy, they are much more attractive than the bare grass with sheep grazing.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
dear sweetdisorder.
How naiive you are.
Green politics are the only sane politics in the REAL world. What is your REAL world…. the world of hollow men and secret agendas and robbing from the poor to feed the rich.
Nat policies are not sustainable they line the pockets of a few and the devil takes the rest.
There is nothing cutsie about green policies. Adhere to Green principles and you will save heaps of money… Your disposable income increases.
Have you been brainwashed or seduced by glossy advertising?
August 15th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Where is our VISION ?
Wind generators do not have to be BIG.
Windflow Technology Ltd is a Kiwi enterprise, now producing smaller, two bladed windmills that will have less visual impact. Designed and made in AotearoaNZ (Cantebury), they are easier to transport, so can be situated in less conspicuous places.
Obviously we can move to even smaller generation (on each individual roof? in each street? in a housing cluster?) and we can move to small scale water generation etc etc … ETC !
“Oh Ye of little faith!” (… or of little imagination?)
August 15th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
… as joanna said at the start of this thread:
( joanna Says: August 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm )
I am surprised there isn’t more of a move towards personal electricity generation in NZ. I am staying in Adelaide at the moment …
August 16th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Eredwen, Some time ago BJ and I had a discussion about house rooftop wind generators. There is a way to make this viable, but it does mean avoiding the propellor method entirely, and copying some aeerodynamic principals used for cooling the radiators on formula race cars. If a stack of vertical axis wind turbines is layed on it’s side along the roof ridgeline it will naturally experience the venturi effect. Mounting a “wing” above the VAWT will amplify the venturi effect effectively doubling the wind speed. The major advantages are the large swept area exposed to the wind irrespective of wind direction, the ability to spread the load evenly across the entire building frame and foundations, and the lower cost due to smaller bearing loads and not needing a tower or resource consent, although a building permit would be needed.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“Jarrod Diamond’s book “Collapseâ€?. It’s a study of various collapsed civilizations.
They *all* ran out of one or more physical resources.
Trees and agricultural land being the two key ones. Deforestation and salinifaction due to over-irrigation were common civilization-killers. Then there’s annihilation of fisheries stocks.”
Icehawk, the reason why those civilisations ran out of resources was because they had no markets. Had Easter Island had a market, the price of wood would have increased and the demand would have decreased in response. People would have used the price signals to increase the production of wood, and had Easter Island had strong property rights, then people would have been further encouraged to plant trees. Had Ur had a market, people would have been far more conservative in their use of water and would have planted far more appropriately.
Indeed, I would suggest that Diamond’s book is a perfect example of the Tragedy of the Commons; when you let people own and use things collectively, they tend to stop thinking logically and tend to use resources far more excessively. We are seeing this in Canterbury with its water resources; there is essentially no ownership of the water and so no price signals to tell farmers, you are using too much water, please stop.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
John-ston,
I always thought I was an idealogue, but from your last post, I reckon you surpass me.
What happens when the resource is limited by natural factors (for example, the amount of land), but is essential for human survival (for example food). Do rational consumers simply eat less food because of the price signals, or do they revert to stealing and war (resulting ina a breakdown of your precious markets)?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Kevyn,
That sounds good!
Are you and BJ getting on with the design etc ?
I’d willingly join you as a serious, but rather “small” investor, and could bring others with me.
e
August 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Incidentally, those that favour new “Think Big” fossil fuel etc generation have said nothing about the inefficiency of long lines to transport the electricity produced … and the associated power losses en route.
Also I understand that the most efficient use of (our non renewable) fossil fuels is to produce HEAT, (and NOT to produce heat solely for the purpose of converting it into electricity.) Presumably smaller-scale amounts of electricity could be produced as a bi-product of heat production for appropriate purposes? … possibly from all sorts of sources that have not been tapped yet.
This leads to the desirability of electricity lines and meters that allow, and measure, the flow of electricity both ways (in and out of our factories and homes)… eg power from my efficient windmill can be shared when I don’t need it…
Both of these suggest that a “think smaller and more local” is a better way for us to approach the future.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
This subject is being discussed on The Visible Hand
http://tvhe.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/is-nationals-energy-policy-ideolo gical-spite/
August 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Eredwen, BJ and I only debated the general concept. Although, not being an engineer I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my unconventional interpretation of the relevant physics had been proved correct by a university professor. BJ did consider the concept was valid for islands in the tradewinds.
I haven’t taken the idea any further because, while my brain is good at spotting the similarities between problems and solutions in disperate fields, its not much good at building things.
However, this idea was partly inspired by a very simple wind ornament so a proof of concept prototype wouldn’t be expensive or time sonsuming to build for somebody with carpentry and/or mechanical skills. I get the impression you live in Christchurch too. Since it’s not money that’s needed but practical skills perhaps you could contact me via the email link on my website and we could connect this idea with people who make use of it. I really think it has potential for the developing world and in situations where someone already has an inverter.
If my understanding of the aerodymics of the “blade” design is correct it should produce high torque at low RPM, which is what is needed to use the most abundant wind speeds, and tend to stall at higher rpms so that it wont have a problem with storms and windgusts. The most important question that a proof of concept prototype is needed to answer is whether the lack of efficiency is exceeded by the lack of capital cost.