208 thoughts on “General debate, September 30, 2012

  1. No excuse for police perjury

    Grant Wormald didn’t just give evidence that was inconsistent; he clearly perjured himself in a court of law. He said to his knowledge there was no other agencies involved in the surveillance of Mr Dotcom, knowing full well that the GCSB was involved. In fact he attended a meeting on December 14 with GCSB operatives. For him to say he wasn’t aware of their involvement is an obvious lie, made under oath, and the Detective Inspector should be held to account…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  2. Jackal. You claim to know what the question the lawyer asked the policeman. When I follow the link it is merely your claim on another blog. You then state that there is no available transcript of the court proceedings. How please tell me can you possibly know? Were you actually in court to hear the question?
    If not are we expected to believe the the police officer committed perjury just because you claim to know the question asked when there is as yet no official record of what was said?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  3. alwyn

    If not are we expected to believe the the police officer committed perjury just because you claim to know the question asked when there is as yet no official record of what was said?

    You will find that the questioning was televised earlier this week on Campbell Live and today on Q+A. It has also been reported by One News, and that’s where I quoted it from.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  4. Now it isn’t just the new college grads who are running as fast as they can off to Oz.

    It’s just about everyone who is competent to do anything except pick fruit.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10837583

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10837419

    The question I have here is when do the New Zealanders who learned the wrong lesson from Muldoon’s error (not taking control of the nation’s currency in the process) and who worship the notion of comparative advantage and basic Chicago School economics…

    … when do they get the message that they have stuffed things up even worse than Muldoon ever did?

    Seriously. For a nation that consumes industrial products there is NO SUCH THING as a post-industrial economy, and for THIS nation, as far as it is from everywhere else and as small as it is, there is no alternative to SOME form of protection for its industry.

    It can go wrong, and it certainly WAS done wrong in the past, but there is not an alternative that works for us. That’s the bottom line here, or we are going to be a bunch of peasant tenant farmers on the land we formerly owned.

    I really wish we’d get this discussion started. It is ENTIRELY wrong, what we are doing as a nation and it is certain that National is more completely clueless than anyone else about what it is doing to us.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  5. I have to say that THIS problem isn’t just National’s. This is something I think of as “The Kiwi Disease”. It is a problem with Labour and with ACT and with Peter (over)Dunne and Winston-First.

    The “fact” that we cannot subsidize, support or protect our industries is in short, something that almost every New Zealander instantly agrees with. That bad experience with the banks back in the 80′s, the ripping away of the captive market in Britain??? The wrong lesson was learned, and is still taught here.

    …So we are all in agreement and all utterly (in terms of this nation’s economic and societal health) wrong!!!.

    …and that is a problem for ANY economic proposal that would actually work for us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  6. BJC’s second linked article to The Herald, the headline being:

    New Zealand university degrees are the most worthless in the developed world, an international report reveals.

    The Herald strikes again.

    Its not that NZ degrees are worthless per se, its that degrees (and higher education generally) do not deliver a salary premium in New Zealand.

    McDonalds workers as often as not have a degree in NZ, and get close to minimum wage. In other civilised countries that simply isn’t the case.

    This NZ problem isn’t recent; previous OECD reports have said exactly the same thing.

    One one of the seven PM programmes a couple of weeks back there was a piece chatting to a emigrants to Oz, and they talked to a couple of girls. Didn’t seem the sharpest tools in the box, but when asked what NZ needed to do, they were incisively clear: NZ needs to improve its wages and reduce its food costs.

    That’s all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  7. Yeah… I don’t pay that much attention to the details of the headlines but that is a good catch. It is that the degrees, NZ or not, don’t have a payback here.

    Which is due to the wages sucking and the phenomena of getting a block of German Emmental Swiss for $25/kilo less than a NZ block of Emmental Swiss, and both being a multiple of the price of a kilo of steak… or simply the price of milk, or bread here.

    Exactly right DBuckley.

    The question is WHY is this the case.

    You can’t get the wages without the industry. Can’t even really have the R&D without the industry being present… it simply doesn’t work.

    …and EVERY kiwi knows that we can’t compete with China for industrial production so we shouldn’t make anything here except pigs and sheep and beef and milk.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  8. Jackal – you go all out to slander and defame Grant Wormald, by calling him corrupt, a perjurer, and a liar, despite you…

    - not really knowing the context of the question.
    - not knowing if he was one of those who knew about the GCSB involvement.
    - not knowing the meaning of surveillance (literally meaning “to watch”, as opposed to bugging, which is to listen).

    You must really hate this guy and want to destroy him to make such claims before anyone really knows the facts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  9. “Before anyone knows the facts” – they are in the media, if you bothered to read.

    Mr Wormald is a member of the police’s Organised and Financial Crime Agency, and led the raid on Dotcom’s mansion. The agency had asked the GCSB to spy on Dotcom in the first place, to ascertain if he posed a potential threat to arresting officers.

    “The police source said Wormald has argued the answer to his question has been taken out of context. He said he was asked about “physical surveillance” and was not referring to the snooping of emails and phonecalls which GCSB is understood to have carried out.

    Asked if police obtained their own interception warrant allowing them to listen to Dotcom’s conversations, Wormald replied: “We certainly did not.” When Davison moved on to questions about the December 14 meeting between police, Crown Law and US authorities, Wormald said he would “rather not” name the other group in the room – now known to have been the GCSB.

    Davison finally says: “So apart from the surveillance which [the police surveillance team] might have been going to undertake on your behalf was there any other surveillance being undertaken here in New Zealand to your knowledge?” Wormald replies: “No there wasn’t.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7748275/Police-stand-firm-behind-besieged-senior-officer

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  10. For Wormald’s testimony to be true (in any sense), the GCSB used no physical surveillance (of the type police use on getting a warrant) but either relied on Echelon snooping on phone calls and emails and or more direct interception of cell phone calls by camping out between his residence/workplaces and the nearest cell phone tower.

    Again from the DomPost

    ” may have intercepted communications by camping out near the German millionaire’s house and deploying specialist snooping equipment.

    Author and journalist Nicky Hager, whose 1996 book Secret Power lifted the lid on the shadowy Government Communications Security Bureau, said the agency’s spies were “not spies in the normal sense”.

    “They’re technicians . . . and they are the people who do a technical job.”
    Hager’s book traced New Zealand’s involvement in the global Echelon network, which spies on communications, including emails and phone calls. He interviewed a number of GCSB staff for the book.

    The GCSB’s involvement in the Dotcom case has raised questions about how and what information was collected on the internet entrepreneur.

    Hager said the fact the GCSB operated without warrants limited its options, because any snooping which necessitated planting a device would require one. “They can legally go out and listen to the airwaves, because that’s not planting a device.

    “So they could theoretically sit on a hill and pick up signals. Those signals intelligence officers are very good . . . they pick up all the local radio signals so basically they would be picking up his mobile-phone traffic.”
    The other way they could spy on Dotcom was through the Waihopai listening station, which is part of the Echelon network. “They’d actually just plug in his email address, his name, his company name whatever and see what comes off it.”

    “But in New Zealand I don’t think they would do this. They would just have someone camping nearby, or sitting between there and the next mobile tower.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7734161/Scandals-spooks-not-regular-spies

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  11. Also this about Burgess head of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency

    ahttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10837797

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. SPC – it seems you’re still interchanging the terms surveillance (watching – literally “to watch”) and spying (watching, listening, bugging, tracking etc).

    If I was going to seriously defame and slander someone the way Todd/Jackal does all the time, I’d first wait to hear the context, and learn the legal meanings of the terms used etc.

    The rediculous thing is that no other country in the world would there be the hysterical about such a minor thing as everywhere else the police would just do all the tracking, bugging, surveillance etc.

    All to protect the “rights” of a fraudster, inside trader, and embezzler.

    And those things can be said because he has convictions for them all.

    Not to mention all the pornography websites he ran exploiting young girls.

    Such a great choice of person the Greens have decided to align themselves with – Russel even laid the complaint for him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  13. No, echelon (security of the realm) surveillance occurs on “activity” triggers and extending it to run surveillance on (resident) individuals on a police (criminal matter) request does not render information that can be legally used.

    Police (anywhere) can only use information gathered lawfully.

    And this often requires a warrant – the question is why police never sought, or could not get a warrant and thought they could get information illegally via GCSB.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. SPC – surveillance is watching or observing. It can be done via camera, but it is visual. Tracking and bugging is something different again.

    The fact that there’s so much faux hysteria about protecting someone with such a record (who didn’t even bother to press charges himself) shows that it’s nothing more than a political stunt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  15. I’ll answer my own question – because they were gathering information for the American case against Dotcom, not a case in New Zealand. This is linked to the (growing habit of) illegal supply of information to the Americans.

    The problem is how they build a (local) case to hand him over to the Americans, given this and given that their home invasion was also illegal.

    The police could use this case in training manuals – maybe entitled “when bending over backwards to help Americans just results in a chiropractor bill”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  16. The term surveillance when used by the said policeman, Wormald, supposedly refers to physical surveillance – such as planting a bug. Apparently he was only denying that another agency did that – this implies that GCSB, who do not specialise in watching houses using binnoculars (something a policeman could do), used their technical capabilities to monitor/sureillance communications (phone and internet) – via either echelon or residence to cell phone tower (including for wireless PC/household screens).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. SPC says “monitor/sureillance communications (phone and internet) ”

    Again you show you are misunderstanding “surveillance”. Surveillance is watching or observing. I can’t surveil your phone call unless I stand there and watch you.

    I think the problem here is many people are wrongly using surveillance (visual spying) to include other types of spying as well – bugging, tracking , intercepts etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  18. This makes me think of primary school years ago – working my way through each level of reading comprehension.

    We are discussing what Wormald said – and the way the word is used in his and related occupation groups, not your singular understanding of a word in the dictionary. You are not that important.

    Surveillance done by human eyes and ears is not the same as surveillance done by technological means – but this is still called surveillance. Surveillance of internet traffic and phone calls is done by echelon – and echelon “sees and hears” all the traffic. Thus would also apply to a more localised technological means of surveillance of household activity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. SPC says “The problem is how they build a (local) case to hand him over to the Americans, given this and given that their home invasion was also illegal.”

    It was reported that the Americans gave us evidence that he was rewarding New Zealanders who had been getting high volume downloads from illegally uploading our own NZ made creative content.

    When this happens Kiwi artists, mucisians, photographers, writers, film makers, actors etc get nothing for all their hard work, as it’s effectively hijacked, and one person illegally takes all the proceeds from their hard work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  20. SPC says “Surveillance done by human eyes and ears is not the same as surveillance done by technological means – but this is still called surveillance. ”

    Just because you and others use a word wrongly, and even repeatedly wrongly over a long period of time, doesn’t make it correct. (unless you have learned to see with your ears).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  21. All to protect the “rights” of a fraudster, inside trader, and embezzler.

    Not at all, and you keep raising this irrelevant fact as a (failing) diversionary tactic. Its not about the target of an illegal act, it is about a perpetrator. If you pick up a gun and shoot someone, it matters not if they are a child molester who has destroyed the life of many, or a priest, its still the act of you picking up the gun that will be measured at law.

    John Key has said that the law was broken, and further stated that it was a “mistake”.

    The fact that an act was a “mistake” does not absolve the comitter of criminal liability. The law often regards a “mistake” as “carelessness”. For example, causing death by careless driving, or by careless use of a firearm.

    Finally, and more generally, I have no idea what sort of spying or surveillance was illegally carried out. But I very much doubt it involved Echelon; the target of Echelon is traffic originated off-shore.

    As one example, most people think that phone tapping and tracing happens like it does on the tele and in movies. Modern portrails show it like it was back in the black and white movie days, when it took time to trace a call. It all got really easy in 1995 with the passing of the Americal legislation entitled CALEA which required all phone switch manufacturers to install and upgrade to allow easy lawful interception, and thus with the consequent passage of time, every phone switch on the planet has this capability. So now the law enforcement agency know the source and destination numbers of a phne call before the called phone rings, not 35 seconds after the call is answered. The days of men in overalls running around the exchange examining Strowger selectors to literally see where the next hop is and run there are now consigned to history.

    Today, an authorised person can listen to (and record) calls in real time from a console anywhere. So when the spy on the movie says “this is not a secure line” – he’s right. You need a secure telephone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  22. With as much phone traffic being routed across the internet as there is, it gets even easier for them.

    If I want to keep secrets I encrypt. I don’t because I don’t, but I know the difference between the phone and a private whisper.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. dbuckley says “Its not about the target of an illegal act, it is about a perpetrator.”

    Congratulations would be in order if you can convince just a single person in NZ that The Greens would go all out in the same way to protect the rights of a foreign paedophile.

    Can you really see Russel getting hysterical and laying police complaints about the civil rights of an oil executive?

    It just shows that the level of concern shown by the Greens is fake and it’s all a political stunt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 (-3)

  24. Regarding the topic of the ross sea, I would like to add, that the aim should be to raise enough public and political pressure to have CCAMLR member nations, starting with the New Zealand Government, to support the protection of the entire Ross Sea, with all commercial fishing phased out.

    Otherwise we can’t look our grandchildren in the eyes and say, we did our best to protect the nature!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  25. @photonz1

    Just because you and others use a word wrongly, and even repeatedly wrongly over a long period of time, doesn’t make it correct.

    I hate to be a buzz kill but SPC et al are quite correct in their usage of the word ‘surveillance’.

    While the term in French does literally mean to watch over or from afar, the modern usage does indeed include any and all methods to monitor a subject’s behaviour or interaction with 3rd parties generally in a surreptitious or non-invasive manner – in effect to gather information about a subject without that subject’s explicit knowledge or approval.

    This is all of course perfectly legal and in some circumstances desirable, so long as the correct checks and balances are in place to limit abuse.

    Disclaimer: I have been involved in projects specific to telecommunications infrastructure here and abroad where both ‘surveillance’ and ‘intercept’ capability have been mandated so I have some working knowledge of both the nomenclature and methodology.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  26. I would have thought the Search and Surveillance bill title would have been explanatory, and to be fair photonz does not always argue a line sincerely but to obscufate an issue – a variant on controlling the topic in a thread debate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  27. …”photonz does not always argue a line sincerely”…

    What?! No! You can’t mean…

    Crumbs!

    Another edifice, tumbled.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 (+3)

  28. Shunda asks “Dotcom gave us fireworks… FIREWORKS!!! how bad can he possibly BEEEE!!!”

    It depends if you were one of the thousands of creative Kiwis whose words, images and film were being pirated to fund it.

    The sight of the fireworks, is the sight of thousands of Kiwis being screwed.

    We’re just one small company, but we’ve had one person lose their job because we’re losing the struggle to stop people stealing our copyrighted works.

    We’ve spent years of work and most of the money we had to create those works, and someone else blatantly makes a fortune ripping them off. I know others who have lost their job, their business, some of them even their homes.

    Dotcom has absolutely screwed creative Kiwis.

    It’s sickening to see the Greens back his “rights” to the hilt.

    It makes a total mockery of the Greens claim that they care about Kiwi jobs.

    It is blatantly clear they care more about scoring political points and Dotcoms “right” to screw people, than they do about protecting the intellectual property of Kiwis.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  29. Thoughts of Kim Dotcom explode inside of your head, don’t they photonz1, like fireworks, searing your brain and offending your delicate sensibilities. Mr .com is loathed indeed, by Key-lovers everywhere – he’s doing so much harm, so much damage to what was John’s shiny carapace, and it hurts the devotees something wicked. I don’t think Mr .com is a jolly fine fellow at all, but I love his work in rooting out rot, like a builder with a chisel and hammer – in this case it’s Jonny Rotten that’s getting the gouge and that’s worth celebrating – with some fireworks!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 (+2)

  30. Greenfly – it says a lot that you’re happy to see Kiwis lose their jobs because of copyright breaches, and the money made from it used for fireworks.

    It also makes a mockery of The Greens calls to protect NZ intellectual property, when they go out of their way back the person who is making millions from the rip-off of Kiwis intellectual property.

    The Greens think they have higher ethics, but they’re happy to see thousands of Kiwis screwed by a foreign criminal if they think they can score some political points out of it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  31. Because that’s patently clearly what I said, photonz1, happy I am, joyously happy, to see Kiwis lose their jobs because of copyright breaches – it’s what I’ve been saying over and over here on Frogblog – a flick through past comments from me will confirm what phononz1 says (photonz1 is employing John Key’s ‘Your reality doesn’t suit me, so here’s my own).
    Any right-minded person reading back through this thread will see PATENTLY CLEARLY that ALMOST EVERY COMMENTER bends over backwards to defend Mr Dotcom’s rights (fancy defending someone’s rights – unforgivable!), and each and every Greenie here is happy, nay, ecstatic about Kiwis losing jobs because of copyright breaches – it’s a veritable orgy of PATENTLY CLEAR political point-scoring and it’s a blatantly clear sickening mockery and it’s green too!! No wonder you’ve whipped yourself into a froth, photonz1, this is worse than anything Key has done or could every do, in fact, John’s good and Green is bad, real bad!

    Real bad!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 (+4)

  32. Greenfly – the sad fact is the Greens don’t care enough to even mutter a single sentence in defence of the rights of those Kiwis who were ripped off by Dotcoms websites.

    Yet we get mass hysteria from the Greens about sticking up for a foreign criminal who was making millions from the rip offs.

    It shows the Greens claim of higher ethics is a complete fiction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  33. photon

    Yet we get mass hysteria from the Greens about sticking up for a foreign criminal who was making millions from the rip offs.

    Mass hysteria… Do you even know what that means photon?

    You’re incorrect that Dotcom designed MegaUpload to rip people off… Websites and applications like LimeWire, Gnutella, Suprnova.org, isoHunt, TorrentSpy, The Pirate Bay and Napster were designed to bypass the manufacturers, MegaUpload wasn’t. Saying it was just shows how ignorant of website design you are.

    Your argument melts down to saying a car designer is responsible for a drunk driver who causes an accident. In order to stop drunk driving (illegal file sharing) you want to take away everyones cars (Peer-to-peer), which is impractical if not impossible.

    MegaUpload was a legitimate business, which some people abused. Many legitimate businesses have an element of illegality to them. Most businesses have risks, and file-sharing just happens to be a risk the movie and music industries face. Despite this, they’re still posting multi-million dollar profits and I very much doubt anybody has lost their job because of file-sharing. Do you have some evidence to base your assumption on, or are you just making shit up again photon?

    Considering your ignorance, you are probably not aware that Dotcom went above and beyond to try and curb the amount of illegal file-sharing that was going on @ MegaUpload. However it was cheaper for the industry to close MegaUpload down instead of using the mechanism specifically set up to remove illegal content. They are in fact too lazy to do the right thing.

    What closing MegaUpload down did was push many people into purchasing legitimate products, but it pushed a lot more into using completely free file-sharing applications and websites. Like it or not, bar closing down the internet, Peer-to-peer file-sharing is here to stay. You can get as hysterical about it as you want.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  34. Photonz

    There is a lot of law under the bridge that makes the limits on what the law enforcers can do more important than any single law breaker.

    There is good reason for that, as the society as a whole is far more vulnerable to the corruption of the system by its rulers than to the corruption of an individual.

    There isn’t any particular bias, and any actual examination of our policies and words would confirm this, to defend people who rip off the creative arts here… but at least we can understand a reason not related to politics, why you are focused so intently on what Mr DotCom, who is not AFAIK a paedophile, abetted by his allowing others to store things on his servers.

    I don’t particularly like Dotcom, don’t trust the cloud, don’t like the notion that enough money erases other considerations in allowing people to become residents here, don’t like people who have so little apparent focus in their lives in general. I don’t however, blame him for a business model that simply puts storage on line for people to use, and doesn’t regulate how they use it. Until that sort of thing is made illegal, it isn’t.

    So what law did HE break in this? We aren’t talking about his history here Photonz, we are talking about this case… and what law he ran afoul of was not a New Zealand law. It was a US law if I am not mistaken.

    No?

    So which laws were broken in NZ and by whom?

    I’m sorry that the digital age has created such a nightmare for digital artists, however, as I pointed out above, allowing that to happen is not Green policy and is not encouraged by us. Despite your disappointment that we are not focused on that particular issue, and the obscene price of books here, you do not find any Green encouraging the theft of creative work.

    So your claims about us become ever more disconnected from reality.

    At the same time however, a very SERIOUS breach occurred in terms of the law enforcement agencies here, the sycophantic kow-towing to US law enforcement agencies and the oversight provided by the single representative of the NZ people who is responsible for our spy agency.

    Serious because a freedom loving democracy that allows such breaches to occur does not remain either free or democratic very long.

    I suggest that you consider that part of this before you commit a single additional electron to this page. Dotcom may or may not be a bad guy but he is certainly not the second coming of satan, and his actions cannot and did not undermine the basic rule of law and rights in our society. John Key’s failure to do his job with respect to our security agencies DID undermine the society. He fncked up Photonz, his agency fncked up, and they didn’t break a US law, they broke NZ law.

    So rather than focus on a minor criminal, and for all his flamboyance Dotcom is a MINOR player and his activity is a sideshow here in NZ, we focus on the failure that threatens the democratic foundations of our society.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  35. Jackal – Megaupload is charged with targeting specific highly sought after content, paying people to illegally upload it, and charging others to download it.

    And you rediculously try to claim that ripping people off like this is a legitimate business.

    Jackal says “Considering your ignorance, you are probably not aware that Dotcom went above and beyond to try and curb the amount of illegal file-sharing that was going on @ MegaUpload.”

    The American indictment has examples of dozens of movies that were still being downloaded from Megaupload MORE THAN A YEAR after the order to remove them.

    The Americans have conversations from Mega executives saying they are running, quote, a pirating business, and they can afford to take down a few movies down because it’s only a drop in the bucket of what they have loaded.

    Effectively you are defending someone making millions of dollars by pirating the earnings of those who created the content.

    Jackal shows total ignorance about the creative industry “I very much doubt anybody has lost their job because of file-sharing. ”

    We run a very small business, and we’ve lost one job because we’re struggling to stop people pirating our copyrighted material.

    And we’re doing a hell of a lot better than most others I know in our industry.

    Tell the 300 students doing photography at Southern Insitute that there’s no harm being done when 290 of them have no chance of ever getting a photography job when they qualify.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  36. photon

    Megaupload is charged with targeting specific highly sought after content, paying people to illegally upload it, and charging others to download it.

    Therein lies the rub… MegaUpload is charged but has not been found guilty.

    We run a very small business, and we’ve lost one job because we’re struggling to stop people pirating our copyrighted material.

    You prove my point… Halting the illegal use of your photographs is about how you operate your online presence. It’s your ignorance of the systems available that means your content is being pirated photon. Therefore it’s your inability to change your operation to adapt to the risks involved in creating content that has caused (if you’re to be believed) a job to be lost. Knowledge is power photon, if you don’t have the time to learn about how to protect your work, I suggest you pay somebody else to show you.

    Otherwise your “I hate file-sharing” argument is entirely pathetic! Peer-to-peer isn’t going away anytime soon, so you had better adapt or your business will die… And all the other photographic businesses that do adapt will prosper at the void left by outdated dinosaurs.

    Keys implausible deniability

    It’s apparent that there’s a cover-up going on to try and protect the Minister in charge, John Key, who has now run away to the US to take some of the heat off…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  37. Jackal – do you also blame other victims of crime? – i.e. for dressing like up like a tart.

    So tell me – how do we stop companies illegally scanning our images from publications, putting them online, using them on mainline tv channels in NZ, etc?

    That you think this would have been stopped with better online protection, shows the level of your ignorance about copyright.

    Anyone who thinks it’s fine to make money by ripping off other Kiwis in this way, would be totally unemployable in my company – and every other company I know.

    Who would want anyone with such a criminal attitude working in their company?

    Jackal to Sir Peter – “I don’t see any problem ripping you movies off so I make the money instead of you……. And yes, I’d love a job in your company.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  38. photon

    So tell me – how do we stop companies illegally scanning our images from publications, putting them online, using them on mainline tv channels in NZ, etc?

    Lol! You want me to give you free advice? Get real photon.

    Anyone who thinks it’s fine to make money by ripping off other Kiwis in this way, would be totally unemployable in my company – and every other company I know.

    Don’t get confused photon, I don’t think it’s fine to make money from other people’s work. I do however understand the reality of the situation, and how best to adapt to it, which is something dinosaurs like yourself seem incapable of comprehending.

    Jackal to Sir Peter – “I don’t see any problem ripping you movies off so I make the money instead of you……. And yes, I’d love a job in your company.”

    How exactly am I ripping off Peter Jackson’s movies to make money? You have traversed from reality into the realm of Planet Key. Come back to planet earth photon, before it’s too late.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  39. BJ says “I don’t however, blame him for a business model that simply puts storage on line for people to use, and doesn’t regulate how they use it. Until that sort of thing is made illegal, it isn’t.”

    How about a buiness model that specifically targets popular content, pays people to illegally upload that content, and makes millions from charging people to download illegal copies?

    Then get anybody gullible enough to beleive that it’s nothing more than an innocent online storage system.

    BJ says “So rather than focus on a minor criminal..”

    Screwing hundreds of millions of dollars from ripping off someone elses creative work is a “minor criminal”

    BJ – you completely and utterly blowns to bits your arguement that we should support NZ Industry.

    You obviously don’t give a shit about protecting NZ film workers, mucsicians, artists, actors, photographers, writers, designers etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  40. Jackal says “You want me to give you free advice?”

    Translated. “I really haven’t got the slightest idea of what I’m talkiing about

    And I’ve haven’t got any idea whatsoever how you could stop people scanning pictures from publications.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  41. Jackal says
    “Don’t get confused photon, I don’t think it’s fine to make money from other people’s work. ”

    Do you really expect ANYONE to beleive that, after you’ve just defended Dotcom making money from other peoples work ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  42. photon

    Translated. “I really haven’t got the slightest idea of what I’m talkiing about

    And I’ve haven’t got any idea whatsoever how you could stop people scanning pictures from publications.”

    Actually I have a lot of knowledge on copyright law, and it all depends on what rights you’ve sold and what MSM outlet stole your work? If you cannot tell me that, then it would appear you’re full of shit photon, as usual.

    Do you really expect ANYONE to beleive that, after you’ve just defended Dotcom making money from other peoples work ?

    As far as I can tell, Dotcom made money selling access to webspace. I would not argue against him doing that just as I would not argue against iCloud or all the other various web storage services.

    But back to my question; How exactly am I ripping off Peter Jackson’s movies to make money photon?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  43. Jackal says “Actually I have a lot of knowledge on copyright law.”

    You repeatedly show otherwise.

    Jackal says “As far as I can tell, Dotcom made money selling access to webspace.”

    You must want everyone to think you are extraordinarily gullible and naive.

    If I pay someone to specifically make illegal copies of Lord of the Rings and upload them to my website, then charge you with access so you can download as many illegal copies as you want, you think there’s nothing wrong with that?

    And if I pay thousands of dollars in bonuses to those who have the largest numbers of illegal downloads, that’s all ok?

    And you think it’s all designed for people to legally share files. How quaint.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  44. photon

    And you think it’s all designed for people to legally share files. How quaint.

    MegaUpload was designed for people to pay to share files. The legality or illegality of the issue is determined by what is being transfered, and it is therefore the user that should be liable.

    There is no evidence that Dotcom paid anybody to Rip movie DVD’s to specifically upload to MegaUpload. You’re making shit up again photon… Loser!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  45. Jackal shows his complete ignorance about how Megaupload operated.

    “There is no evidence that Dotcom paid anybody to Rip movie DVD’s to specifically upload to MegaUpload. You’re making shit up again photon… Loser!”

    Keep making a fool of yourself Jackal.

    Charge 54 of the indictment says -

    “It was further part of the Conspiracy, from at least September 2005 until July2011, that the Conspiracy provided financial incentives for users to upload infringing copies of popular copyrighted works. The Conspiracy made payments to uploaders who were known to have uploaded infringing copies of copyrighted works”

    ANd there was also further evidence given to NZ that they were paying Kiwis thousands of dollars to illegally upload content from NZ.

    Incredible that you defend a mass rippoff of hard working New Zealanders by a foreign multimillionaire with a criminal record for fraud, insider trading, embezzlement, who is wanted in several countries.

    Stunning that The Greens get hysterical defending this guys “rights” but don’t give the slightest stuff about the NEW ZEALANDERS he’s ripped off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  46. I don’t care to argue Dotcom’s activities at all. A court somewhere will decide those, if need be. I do care though, about the illegal activities of our own spy agency and the deceitful behaviour of our Prime Minister. Those things are immediately important for New Zealanders. Dotcom’s internet activities, not so much, though it consumes photonz1, who can’t believe that the Green party and the commenters here aren’t all bitter and twisted about Kim Dotcom, but if I might presume to speak for many of us here, we are kinda sickened by the treacherous behaviour of John Key and the secrecy behind which he hides his activities – activities that impact seriously on all of us.
    Photonz1 – I suggest you readjust your perspective on all this and take a more balanced, realistic view of our situation, and stop beating your ‘Dotcom is evil, evil!‘ drum.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  47. How about a buiness model that specifically targets popular content, pays people to illegally upload that content, and makes millions from charging people to download illegal copies?

    That’s alleged, not proven Photonz. I don’t even know if it is definitively against NZ law to do it, though it certainly should be.

    The issue here isn’t what he did. It is what John Key didn’t do and his tame spy agency DID do.

    Screwing hundreds of millions of dollars from ripping off someone elses creative work is a “minor criminal”

    You are being hysterical Photonz. The amount of illegal content in his storage is not in evidence, and owing to the illegal nature of the operation against him, may never ever become admissable in court AS evidence. The whole thing was overcooked and underdone… and the person overseeing the agency that cooked it up was absent without leave.

    You obviously don’t give a shit about protecting NZ film workers, musicians, artists, actors, photographers, writers, designers etc.

    Truly Photonz, there is no evidence in anything I have said to support your ravings here. You keep working on allegations about what was happening and you’re going to pop a blood vessel when the truth comes out but can’t be used and Mr Dotcom can’t be extradited, because illegalities and irregularities in the surveillance, search and seizure tainted all the evidence.

    There are rules the cops have to follow… and rights of innocent until proven guilty that remain legal standards in our court system. You’ve passed all those warning markers and you’re headed straight for setting up a police state.

    I don’t think that’s what you mean to do. It is however, where you are heading. So settle down… again I advise you…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  48. This is of course no ridiculous matter – because the impact of the corporate lobbying on our PM will be imposed on us via TPP – that already includes the idea of corporates being protected from, or able to compensation for, any government legislation that impacts on their bottom line.

    The PM has already shown how he will pass labour law legislation to win Hollywood funding of films made here and now corporates there think they can write our laws on copyright as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  49. Bjchip’s clarity of thought is legendary, photonz1, so when he warns that your blood vessel is liable to pop, I begin to worry for you and I don’t usually care for your wellbeing I ‘m ashamed to say, but here and now, I’m fretting, especially when I think I may be contributing to your distress and possible demise (embolisms, photonz1, are no laughing matter), so I’m joining Mr Chip in urging you to wind-down, take a chill pill, be cool til after school and let the .com business just wash over you, like a wave, and just do as your clay-footed hero Jonny Rotten does, and bounce from cloud to cloud, take a round of toilet-stop-free golf and look out at the world in a half-lidded, tranzrail-eyed way.
    It just doesn’t matter any more, photonz1.
    Key is toast.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  50. Voters in California will decide on a proposal next month that would require the labelling of most foods made with genetically modified ingredients. Proposition 37 is supported by the organic industry but many major food suppliers oppose it saying it will drive up prices.

    But a recent opinion poll shows a clear majority in favour of the proposal. There have been attempts in 18 states to change labelling laws on genetically modified foods via legislation. None have been successful. But after a grassroots campaign that garnered more than a million signatures, the measure will be on the ballot paper in California for the first time next month.

    If passed, the statute will require labelling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Foods containing these ingredients would be banned from using the word “natural”.

    Supporters say that consumers have a right to know. More than 50 countries around the world require labelling. Why shouldn’t consumers in the US, the country with the largest proportion of their food containing GM?

    “We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure simply adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering,” said the Yes on 37 campaign group.

    Those who oppose the measure say it is unfair to single out GM as something that requires labelling and not include antibiotics, pesticides or hormones used in production. The No on 37 group is supported by farmers, business groups and food manufacturers. Their spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks told BBC News that the overall impact of will be higher prices. “Proposition 37 is a poorly written law that gives inaccurate and misleading information and will raise grocery costs for California families by up to $400 a year,” she explained.

    It is estimated that around $40m will be spent mainly on TV advertisements, in an attempt to convince people to vote for or against. The vast majority of the money, according to an analysis by independent researchers MapLight, comes from big biotechnology firms including Monsanto and Du Pont who, between them, have contributed around $12m.

    Some commentators believe that the vote in California will have implications beyond the state.

    “Internationally the effect won’t be as direct, but it is likely to encourage governments that don’t already require labeling to adopt similar measures.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19828142

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  51. Whether electric cars are good for the environment may depend on the source of the electricity – as production of electric cars is worse environmentally than petrol powered ones.

    “The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study … looked at the life-cycle impact of conventional and electric vehicles. In essence, they considered how the production, the use and the end-of-life dismantling of a car affects the environment, explained co-author Prof Anders Hammer Stromman.

    With electric car production being so damaging to the environment, these cars have already polluted a great deal by the time they hit the road, the report says. However, if the cars were then powered by electricity made from low-carbon electricity sources, they could nevertheless offer “the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions” over time.

    However, in regions where fossil fuels are the main sources of power, electric cars offer no benefits and may even cause more harm, the report said. “It is counterproductive to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion.”

    In Europe, where electricity is produced in a number of different ways, electric cars do offer environmental benefits when compared with cars with internal combustion engines, according to the study. “Electric vehicles powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in their global warming potential relative to conventional diesel or petrol vehicles.”

    The report pointed out that the longer an electric car in Europe stays mobile, the greater its “lead” over petrol and diesel engines. “Assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000km exaggerates the global warming benefits of electric vehicles to 27-29% relative to petrol and 17-20% relative to diesel,” it said. “An assumption of 100,000km decreases the benefit of electric vehicles to 9-14% with respect to petrol vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle.”

    An electric car’s longevity depends a great deal on how long its battery lasts, not least since it is very expensive to replace them. Batteries are gradually getting better, which could result in electric cars being used for longer. However, as petrol and diesel engines are also improving, the relationships between the different types of vehicles are not constant.

    “A more significant reduction in global warming could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from petrol to diesel,” the report said.

    “If you are considering purchasing an electric vehicle for its environmental benefits, first check your electricity source and second look closely at the warranty on the batteries,” said Professor Stromman.

    Those in power, meanwhile, should recognise “the many potential advantages of electric vehicles [which] should serve as a motivation for cleaning up regional electricity mixes”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. photon

    ANd there was also further evidence given to NZ that they were paying Kiwis thousands of dollars to illegally upload content from NZ.

    The “evidence” is some payments from the Megateam Limited bank account, which could be for anything. Why would they pay people to upload content when they usually do it for free photon? It makes no sense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  53. Megaupload was ripping off thousands of Kiwis and Greenfly says “I don’t care to argue Dotcom’s activities at all.”

    That pretty much sums up the Greens attitude.

    They don’t give a stuff about Kiwis being ripped off – scoring political points is far more important.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 (-1)

  54. Greenfly says “Bjchip’s clarity of thought is legendary”

    I had a long laugh with that one.

    BJ is supporting a repeated criminal who

    - has been convicted for fraud
    - is a right wing multi millionaire, who has
    - earned his money from ripping off other people
    - has been convicted for insider trading
    - has been convicted for embezzlement
    - ran numerous pornography sites that exploited young girls
    - was found with child pornography on the sites he hosted
    - is wanted in several countries

    And that is without even starting on the current allegations he’s facing.

    The big joke is BJ often says he’s concerned about keeping jobs in NZ.

    When he and The Greens defend a criminal ripping off Kiwis for millions, it’s patently clear that any claims about being worried about NZ jobs are total nonsense – they’ve just PROVEN they don’t give a toss.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  55. When that vein pops, photonz1, apply pressure, and think of the good times you’ve had. If you’re lucky, you’ll go quickly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 (+1)

  56. Whilst one can argue to point on the legallity and morality of the big german’s business plan, the questions the Greens should be asking themselves is

    Where was the mega-upload income money banked? In NZL? How much tax did mega-upload pay in NZL? Was any income receipted in NZL and how was that reimbursed back to the owners?. Through offshore tax havens like Apple do?

    What benefit did the NZL economy receive from mega-upload head office being in here?

    Is this the sort of business operation that the Greens would encourage to settle in NZL?

    —————-

    On the question of copyright, you can have two answers.

    Fight (expanding lots of energy and resources) to try and protect it, or dont worry about it and keep your revenue stream up by a process of continuous improvement and/or new products.

    I prefer the later, working on the fact that once any item is in the public domain, you have lost control of the intellectual property.

    So better to spend the money, otherwise spent on litigation, in R+D to provide a better product into which to lead the market.

    Customers much prefer to deal with a company that provides them with better products to service their needs, then one that sells them “last years” products at a cheaper price.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  57. Don’t know anyone here is supporting Dotcom. He may well be a minor crook. The court can decide that.
    What we are concerned about is illegal surveillance by the State. Far more serious. I am more concerned about major criminals, and their accessories (Mirror Photo) who are costing Kiwi jobs, our children their future, and NZ billions, such as Key.

    If what Dotcom was doing was so concerning why has youtube, google anfd microsoft not been shut down. They all offer the same services as megaupload.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  58. Gerrit

    Fight (expanding lots of energy and resources) to try and protect it, or dont worry about it and keep your revenue stream up by a process of continuous improvement and/or new products.

    I prefer the later, working on the fact that once any item is in the public domain, you have lost control of the intellectual property.

    So better to spend the money, otherwise spent on litigation, in R+D to provide a better product into which to lead the market.

    I think you need to be specific about what you’re talking about Gerrit. Designing things is very different to protecting photos and movies in terms of copyright and R+D is different in many ways to manufacturing.

    If you design a tool for instance and don’t have the means to enforce your intellectual property rights, there’s simply no reason to move onto registering your product or trying to get it produced. However if you take photographs you can ensure you are reimbursed properly because it’s easier to control what medium that photograph is put onto and you don’t need to register the photo publicly in order to be able to sell it.

    That’s where photon’s argument falls down… He wants us to believe he’s only selling partial rights to reproduce his photo’s, knowing all the while that he cannot protect his intellectual property rights once his product is in the public domain. Obviously that’s not good business practice and it’s no wonder hi’s business is suffering.

    The problem with design is once you start to undertake the legal process to try and ensure you are paid for your intellectual property, manufacturers find out about your design and can easily steal it. A few small changes and perhaps manufacturing in another country means you no longer have enforceable rights. You would be surprised at how often this occurs.

    With photography, you simply don’t let the work walk out the door without first being paid for it.

    With movies you use a medium that cannot be easily reproduced (35mm film) which ensures an income base. File-sharing is not solely responsible for the decline in ticket sales from 1.58 billion in 2002 to 1.36 billion in 2012 (annualized rate)… The amount of crappy movies being produced is just as detrimental. The same can be said for the music industry.

    Despite the decline in movie ticket sales, profits wen’t from $9.19 to $10.62 billion in the same time period. How sad for the movie industry to increase profits, all the while screaming blue murder that their businesses are going down the drain because of file-sharing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  59. Gerrit @8:15 – But in this case the “improved product” (movies) is what is being delivered by the pirates and the price is zero. Taken to the extreme, this could mean that a movie production could spend $100 million making a movie and then sell one BluRay dvd which is then uploaded to MegaUpload. How is this going to help improve the product? So now all movies have to be made in 3d to help “force” people to go to a 3d theatre so the studios can make some money?

    The same applies to the pharmaceuticals. If you dont provide enough patent protection, new drugs just wont be made because they wont ever exist.

    The same does NOT apply to Apple and their stupid software patents however. Patents on specific “wipes” which are an obvious solution to the problem and that anybody could think of do not justify any protection.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  60. Sorry Photonz

    Again I point out that you cannot and will not find words of mine that “support” Herr Dotcom. Not here nor elsewhere.

    That prosecution should move forward with all the force the law properly brings to bear on him… a force which is immensely LESSENED by the inaction of Key in his role as sole regulator of our spy agency, and the (possibly intentional) fnck-up of the matter of Herr Dotcom’s residency by that agency.

    Our concern must be with that larger crime. The betrayal of our interests by our elected leader and his spy agency.

    The implementation of the law is our concern, not the individual criminal.

    He was allowed into this country because he had so much money that for someone in our immigration department it was enough to grant him a Visa.

    (Well goody, another right wing rich guy to support us?) To say nothing of the lack of qualitative difference between his crimes and those most probably attributable to our very own PM. Who probably learned his regulatory skills from Tim “I am not a regulator” Geithner at the New York Fed – uttered by a Geithner who was utterly disinterested in regulating EVEN THOUGHT IT WAS PART OF HIS JOB. Sound vaguely familiar here?

    So maybe you need to consider that Herr Dotcom could walk… purely because of Key and his Kops. Not because WE had anything to do with him. We don’t even particularly like him. He IS after all, just another right wing rich prick…

    Finally you go on and on about pornography on his sites. Pornography is found on MANY sites. The suppliers are always trying to find places to store it… and a whole lot of people look at some variety or other.

    You missed this I’d guess. “The internet is for porn”.

    So here :-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNigWsJN4A

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  61. Photonz1 knows he cannot find and indeed, need not find the words, “support” with regard Mr.com, from anyone here or from The Green Party – he simply claims it is so, then bases his argument on that claim. It’s the ‘John Key ‘my-reality-trumps-your-reality’ style of debate. Any reasoned argument from an intelligent person can be countered with, “I don’t accept that, the reality is..” which has become Key’s stock response to questions about anything he is involved in – “I don’t accept that”. Listen to him and you will hear the refrain repeated ad nauseum. Photonz1 gets in early with his ‘you ones believe…’ bullshit. It serves him well and takes a thread or two to unravel. Call him on it immediately, I say, and don’t tolerate his obfuscation. He’s a silly chap, creating his own realities here and arguing til he’s blue in the arse that Greens believe this and that. It would be polite, photonz1, to ask, do you believe…? or “Am I right in thinking that you think…” but don’t hold your breat, Froggybloggers, photonz1 isn’t here to learn anything at all.
    His intentions are quite different to that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  62. Greenfly says “Photonz1 knows he cannot find and indeed, need not find the words, “support” with regard Mr.com, ”

    The Greens devote all their time to the protection of Dotcoms “rights”.

    But there’s obviously no political points to be scored by sticking up for the Kiwis he’s been ripping off.

    Not so much as a squeak by the Greens to protect Kiwi jobs against the Megaupload rippoff.

    It just shows that claims of concern over Kiwi jobs are fake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  63. Photonz1 said:

    “The Greens devote all their time to the protection of Dotcoms “rights”.”

    No they don’t. You are telling lies, photonz1.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  64. Kerry says “If what Dotcom was doing was so concerning why has youtube, google anfd microsoft not been shut down. They all offer the same services as megaupload.”

    Duh!

    They don’t pay people bonuses to illegally upload copyrighted material.

    And the don’t charge people to illegally download the copyrighted material.

    They probably don’t regard themselves as essentially a pirating business, as per the quotes from Megaupload executives.

    And as far as I know, they don’t run a numerous porn websites exploiting very young girls with illegally uploaded content either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  65. greenfly says “No they don’t. You are telling lies, photonz1.”

    That’s hillarious.

    They’ve been on the news every day for the last two weeks about terrible serious the GCSD breaches of Dotcoms rights have been, and now greenfly tries to deny it.

    You really are on another planet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  66. photon

    They don’t pay people bonuses to illegally upload copyrighted material.

    And the don’t charge people to illegally download the copyrighted material.

    MegaUpload paid people to upload and download content and the Greens are devoting all their time to protecting Dotcom? Doesn’t sound very plausible to me.

    You really are flying off the handle photon… Putting the nut in RWNJ as usual.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  67. “The terrible GCSD breaches” – yes! That’s what the Greens have been on the news about every day for days now, the terrible GCSD breaches. And they are right to have been doing so. Go Greens!
    That said, he claims by photonz1 are still lies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  68. Given that Dotcom’s rights are the same as those of other New Zealand residents and mostly the same as those of New Zealand citizens, why shouldn’t the Greens defend those rights. That is NOT the same as defending his actions.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  69. One track,

    Problem is that the people in Hollywood have not come to terms with the modern consumer and the digital era.

    They still think that making one blockbuster $100M movie per year, with tight distribution and 1930′s “ticket clipping” processes in place is the way to turn $100M investment into a $100B one.

    Wrong wrong wrong. Customers want to see the movies not in overpriced cinema’s but downloaded into their computers to view at leisure, at home, on big screen televisions. Stopping and starting to suit their individual timetables.

    That means movie studios need to make 10 $10M movies not one $100M movie to succeed in todays world.

    The distribution model developed and totally controlled in the 1930′s by the big studios, no longer works.

    Thank goodness the digital age rescued us from that straight jacket.

    The movie studios need to get smart and figure out a way to get the downloads easily and conveniently (for the small price of an average movie ticket) into the consumers inbox.

    That is the busienss model for the movie industry in the 21st century.

    Another salvation in the digital age was to free us from the tyranny of the photogrpaher and the graphic art studios.

    Back in my corporate days we have to get copies of photographs from the photographer (who held onto the negatives) and take them to a graphic art studio to make into advertising copy using Quark software.

    Well digital cameras got rid of the photographer and Adobe with pagemaker/photoshop/pdf software took care of the art studios and their monopolies.

    All our artwork was able to be produced inhouse. We hired a photographer for a day to do a photoshoot, took back to the office 200 odd TIFF high resolution images and did our own copy for adverts on Adobe software.

    Printers soon realised that 2400 DPI (with CMYK colour) PDF files worked just as well on their printing presses. They were able to get away from the monopoly of the art studios as well.

    Still remember the days we took hard copy photographs (whose images the company owned) up the the place (whose name escapes me) on top of Parnell Rise to be drum scanned into digital files.

    At last we moved into the 2oth century. Never mind that the 21st century was but a dozen or so years away.

    Cutting edge technology then but even they have gone as we are now able to do equally as well scanning on a $100 home printer/scanner.

    Copyrighting laws are not able to keep pace with technology. So why bother?

    Wronmg wrong wrong

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  70. James Cameron, who is about to decide whether or not to spend hundreds of millions on NZ workers and production on EACH of Avatar 2,3 and maybe 4, likened what kim dotcom was doing to the film industry in NZ, to someone sabotaging our agriculture industry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  71. Greenfly says “Photonz1 knows he cannot find and indeed, need not find the words, “support” with regard Mr.com, from anyone here or from The Green Party ”

    What a load of rubbish Greenfly.

    Jackal claims Megaupload has done nothing illegal.
    BJ claims he hasn’t broken NZ law
    Greenfly himself even pleads to stop calling Dotcom evil.
    Greenfly says “Any right-minded person reading back through this thread will see PATENTLY CLEARLY that ALMOST EVERY COMMENTER bends over backwards to defend Mr Dotcom’s rights ”

    Then you contradict your OWN comments that no one is supporting Dotcom.

    Again, it’s blatantly obvious that the Greens are FAR more interested in protecting Dotocoms rights, than the jobs of those Kiwis he was ripping off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  72. Sprout says “He looks like one, he sounds like one, so he probably should be one.”

    Russel has failed to tell us how the average person will benefit from higher petrol prices, higher car prices, higher transport costs, higher flight costs, higher clothing prices, higher electronics and appliance prices, higher prices for ALL imports, anything made of plastic, and EVERYTHING that has to be transported – including ALL food, and higher inflation for everything else.

    Printing money may lower our dollar. But it comes with a long list of negative factors (like inflation which loweres the value of everyone assets, discouraged saving, and encourages more debt – just the opposite of what is good for our country).

    That’s probably why most countries don’t do it unless their economy is tanking.

    Anybody who conveniently ignores the long list of negative factors should NEVER EVER be in charge of our finances.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  73. Photonz

    Stop lying. I said I did not know if NZ law covered what he is ALLEGED to have done, and that if it didn’t it should… and I still don’t know because even THAT isn’t of current importance. If you wanted to be useful you’d find THAT out. That would be a useful thing for us to address as a party, IF it turns out our current law is inadequate to the task. That would be something we could do.

    If you are going to come here at all any more, you had best remember the arguments made properly. You are showing signs of coming seriously unglued on this matter.

    James Cameron is not the government of NZ the last I heard. He has no responsibility whatsoever, for the enforcement of law here and if you were to ask him about the OTHER side of this story he is probably smarter about it than you are. He’d probably far rather have had the government do it right, have useful evidence with no keystone kops violations of rights, and an easy and straightforward extradition… or charges brought HERE on the same basis (provided our laws properly covered the issue).

    The errors made by THIS government and THIS government’s shoddy supervision of its spy agency may very well cause the case against Herr Dotcom to be THROWN OUT!!!! That’s incompetence at best. Probably brought on by the conflicts between two different priorities. Or maybe not. Money did change hands.

    Your anger with us for regarding the rights of citizens here as being more important than any individual criminal actions, is misplaced several times over.

    Get a cup of tea. Think about it some more. You are getting wrong answers and you are making serious errors of fact regarding us and even the things we’ve said in this forum during this argument.

    There’s more than one problem here. Greens focus has to be on the government related issues… NOT individual criminals.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  74. Dr Norman has a better grasp of what is wrong here than any of you, John Key or Bill English. The reasons for QE in the rest of the world run deep, and it is IMHO, a mistake, but there is no escape from the effect.

    If we don’t match them to some degree, we pay for their mistakes.

    We can have jobs or we can have cheap foreign goods paid for by flogging off capital assets.

    Choose.

    You’d better get your priorities straightened out while we are still an independent country instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of some foreign corporations.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  75. Greens solve the poverty problem

    Print a ton of $100 bills and distribute to the poor.

    Fantastic, such vision, such nouse, wow.

    /sarcasm off

    Seriously, printing money is easy, the problem you have is distribution, where will it go? How will you spent it?

    The Greens’ proposal would improve New Zealand’s competitiveness, boost jobs and prevent speculators from cashing in on the high New Zealand dollar.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7781229/Greens-call-to-print-money-rejected

    Can anyone explain how this will exactly happen? Those jobs will magically appear along with the customers for NZL goods and services?

    State jobs must be, for who will invest in NZL with a government printing money to erode the investment overnight.

    Just because the USA is dumb enough to print money, does not make it right for NZL.

    Expected better from Russel and the Greens.

    Fail, fail, fail.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  76. Gerrit. You have just shown you have NFI.

    QA spent on infrastructure, forestry planting, and other investments for the future saved New Zealand in the 30′s. And got us out of the depression before most other countries. WITHOUT INCREASING OFFSHORE DEBT.
    Also how Germany and Japan kick started them selves after the second world war. In fact, how the USA paid for WW2, and the Marshall plan, was QA also.

    We are still using and benefiting from a lot of that investment, or would be if our governments hadn’t gone nuts, and sold most of it.

    I shouldn’t have to tell a businessman how stupid it is to sell irreplaceable, income earning assets.

    What is the inflationary difference between paying for Christchurch with money borrowed offshore and money borrowed from ourselves?

    The money borrowed from ourselves is still an investment in the future. Without the downside of having to pay an offshore bank for the privilege.

    Many in the USA acknowledge that their economy would be much healthier today if they had simply paid off the mortgages instead of giving money to the finance system to continue to hoard, or waste.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  77. So long as the demand is there someone will invest.
    It may be there are openings for genuine NZ entrepreneurs if we lose some monopolies.
    Do you really think if someone like the two grocery monopolies withdrew, there would be no SME startups to fill the gaps.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  78. Artificially keeping their currency low. Printing money. Is working fine for China.

    Doesn’t appear to be doing the USA any harm either. US Government bonds are still the most popular investment. It is where most of the money going to the banks is invested.
    That! is, an exercise in circular stupidity. US Government gives the money to the banks at little or no interest. Banks buy Government bonds and get interest.
    Giving a $100 dollars extra a week, to every citizen, is sensible in comparison.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  79. I dont know what NFI is but I guess it is not a compliment!!

    Print money, go ahead, go for it. Please tell all savers (including all who have kiwisaver accounts – glad I didnt start one as I could guess this is what would happen) their savings are going to be reduced in value.

    Tell all those on fixed incomes that their dollars wont purchases as much as before.

    Distributing “free” money is only going to work if it is matched by an equal value in production and consumption.

    If it does not then it will be highly inflationary.

    For example if no extra housing stock is created, prices will rise for existing stock as more people have access to “free” money to buy a house.

    Will put mine on the market in about 3 years time. Being excempt from the Russel proposed CGT, I will make a bundle in Auckland, buy something a lot cheaper on the coast and retire.

    On second thoughts, lets print “free” money. Suits my long term plans to a tee.

    Baby boomers who are asset rich but cash poor will love it. Young people trying to get ahead with 20+% interest rates wont. Nor will those with cashed up assets or on a fixed wage or benefit.

    I can still remember the 20+% interest rates and if young people want to revisit those, be my guest. Not pretty.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  80. photonz1 – I’ve made an observation. Some people here are accusing you of lying. That’s not nice at all. I suspect they’ll stop doing it as soon as you stop doing it. Supply and demand. That’s something you understand, I suspect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  81. Thanks Kerry – though the US government and its currency (the world “reserve” currency) is a special case.

    Gerrit – The way we currently handle our money supply can not be fixed, it has to be re-incarnated. The economists involved in its creation should on the other hand, all be given jobs they are suited for… seasonal fruit pickers would be about their speed. Given the way we DO handle our money supply, we really do not have a choice with respect to the QE other nations are doing. We have to match that insanity. The price we’ll pay (the penalty extracted of our savers and people who have been “prudent” with their money) will not be anything I like, but it isn’t anything we can avoid – without SERIOUSLY changing the rules here.

    Actually working through Steve Keen’s debt jubilee notion would probably be the best answer for us in the short term.

    I see he is taking his site to a paid status, which may make it harder for some of us to access his ideas. Need to buy the book I suppose.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  82. At a guess Gerrit – NFI = “No Fracking Idea” so it isn’t really THAT insulting. However, I suspect you are thinking more “Austrian” than we can afford.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  83. I see that the incompetent lying traitor has called our plans “Wacky”, which was perfectly expected based on his real employer’s priorities. After all, it would not do to remove the power of the bankers over governments.

    ciao
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  84. Gerrit

    That means movie studios need to make 10 $10M movies not one $100M movie to succeed in todays world.

    You mean movie studios should make lots of crappy movies instead of one good movie? I have to disagree, as there’s already enough crappy movies being made.

    The distribution model developed and totally controlled in the 1930′s by the big studios, no longer works.

    Actually it does work because 35mm isn’t easy to copy. That means there’s a time delay on when a movie is released and when a good copy is available to download. That’s when movie studios make most of their money.

    If you’re happy watching low quality movies made on a tighter budget at home, then fair enough. Personally I like to watch big budget movies at a cinema when the movie is a good one.

    The movie studios need to get smart and figure out a way to get the downloads easily and conveniently (for the small price of an average movie ticket) into the consumers inbox.

    You can already subscribe to many pay per view movie services through the internet, television or a gaming console. The cost is usually less or comparable to an overpriced movie ticket. Presently blockbuster movies are not always immediately distributed like this because movie studios make more money through theatrical releases. They’re not about to undercut that profit stream.

    Copyrighting laws are not able to keep pace with technology. So why bother?

    There’s a lot of technology that can help enforce copyright. In fact if you use Photoshop, then that copyright technology is built right into the application.

    photon

    Jackal claims Megaupload has done nothing illegal.

    I never said that… I said that some of the allegations against Dotcom are questionable and he has not been found guilty of any of the charges. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

    It becomes tedious when you spout nothing but lies photon. Please get a grip.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  85. Gerrit. Is the Government, us, putting 200 million of made up dollars into Christchurch, instead of paying overseas banks to do it, really going to result in all the things you claim.
    You seem a bit confused, claiming savers will get less while young home owners will pay more interest.

    Less borrowing from overseas is going to reduce interest rates, surely, for a start.
    Don’t see QE in the USA, our anywhere else increasing interest rates.
    Most of those on fixed incomes are rentiers. Moderate inflation, provided wages keep up, benefits young people and those who work for a living.

    How has artificially forcing down wage inflation, as we have had for the last 30 years, while price inflation is allowed to continue, worked?

    Our problem is too much money going offshore to rentiers, and not enough to NZ businesses and workers.

    As for savings. Who really believes that money invested in the global financial ponzi scheme will ever be returned with interest indefinitely, That would require infinite resources in a finite world.

    We, and our Government should be making the only real investment, in our young people, infrastructure, sustainable energy and other tangible assets for the future. Just as Labour did in the 30′s.
    Muldoon did have the right idea with think big, just the wrong one on financing it. (If the US had not started regime changes and wars to keep their oil prices down Muldoon would be a hero now).

    You do have NFI.
    Of course the last thing the banking industry wants is to lose their ability to clip the ticket on every transaction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  86. Nick Smith out of the dog box?

    Let’s be perfectly clear, Smith resigned to avoid an investigation into the extent of his corruption. Without an investigation, Smith can never be exonerated, which should mean he never again returns to a position within cabinet…

    Frog, this thread is becoming huge!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  87. Kerry,

    Why bother answering me if I have NFI?

    We borrow from overseas because we dont have enough savings in NZL. less borrowing will reduce interest rates? How?

    Make local money scarce and what happens? Price (interest) charged use of that money increases as demand is maintained.

    So I guess you dont have kiwisaver funds than? If you do, is your money invested locally (and earning at least 2% interest) or overseas earning nothing?

    Be aware that after 3 rounds of quantitive easing in the USA the stagflation has not been lifted. If you have 20% stagflation and through QE you have zero level of inflation you have an actually inflation rate of 20%.

    Russel wants parity with our trading partners. Our major trading partners are Australia and China and they dont do QE.

    But as I said, go ahead and print money, those who are asset rich wont mind a bit. You will do SFA for the economy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  88. Gerrit

    If we create money here instead of borrowing it overseas, borrowing instead from ourselves as we ought to, we charge ourselves what interest we choose to charge and we pay it to ourselves as well. There is no requirement in fact, to charge interest on it at all as the effective ZIRP of the US, Japan and Eurozone demonstrates. Local money would not as a result, be scarce unless we play it the way the US has done, and use the created $$$ to prop up broken banks.

    The US is a good example of what can go wrong if you leave the banksters in charge. It isn’t a good example of anything else and because it is the reserve currency it cannot ( if you read the bit from Triffin I linked to above ) ever break even. Not allowed to.

    The Chinese control the value of their currency directly and it has been suppressed for yonks as a matter of policy. Can’t speak to the Aussies… but a country that produces a surplus has vastly different options to one that is perpetually in deficit… so they don’t need QE, they have to do something different to control it.

    Go ahead and keep believing the Austrian mythology about fiat currencies and forget that what we all actually have are debt-based currencies issued and controlled by the banks.

    Remember who Key used to work for. Ask yourself who he works for now, given his efforts and their results here.

    Having to go to asset sales to manage the country’s economy is NOT a sign of competence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  89. QA in the States is directed towards subsidising banks, not the economy.

    How is QE going to make local money scarce? If it is used properly, for increasing future assets, such as rebuilding Christchurch it adds money to the local economy.

    China does do QE. Lending to the USA, to keep the Chinese currency down and demand up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  90. All that concern about Goverment spending causing inflation. None about, banks being allowed to print money at will is doing to our housing and farm markets.

    If Government investment does overheat a market they have the option of taking it out in taxes or dividends. At present we have no direct control over Banks printing money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  91. I think most young people are more worried about having jobs in the first place. Not savings.

    Savings are going to take a dive anyway.
    If not from all the boomers trying to spend them on services, in their old age, at the same time, into an economy which has been gutted by our present and past Governments, then from the inevitable failure of the banking system, when all the funny money that has been produced by non productive speculation and interest charges, attempts to buy real goods and labour services.

    Unless we invest in a sustainable economy and country, infrastructure, sustainable energy and business, and our young people, for the future, saving will be pointless, anyway!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  92. Gerrit, the alternative is deflation, ie a broadly based fall in prices, which basically means people will buy lots of things they don’t actually need. This adds to our growing pollution problems as well as ensuring more money goes offshore instead of supporting developments in the real economy within New Zealand.

    The question is do you want more jobs created here so people can afford the better quality things they need, or do you want a whole lot of cheap and nasty foreign products in shops next to closed down manufacturing businesses, which will mean less jobs and less people having any money to spend?

    If people have the ability to earn more, they can choose to buy more or invest here or overseas. Without the ability to earn money, but with cheaper products, people lose the ability to invest or save at all.

    Besides if properly conducted, as Japan has proven, quantitative easing has very little impact on inflation. Like the US, they were badly effected by a decline in export earnings, which would have been a lot worse without QE.

    As a manufacturer, I would have thought you would be in favour of policy that increases potential export earnings? In my opinion, a reduction in the amount of borrowing the government is undertaking should be a top priority of any political party. Such policy will also gain widespread public support, because like it or not, National has dug New Zealand into a seriously dangerous debt hole, that will take a long time to resolve.

    QE is only one step in trying to stop our economy going down the drain. National on the other hand seems happy to pull on the plug. How many more unemployed are there, how much more Govt debt and how much has GDP declined since they took power I wonder? Clearly sitting back and doing nothing isn’t working.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  93. As a manufacturer, I would have thought you would be in favour of policy that increases potential export earnings?

    My expenses go up as I pay more for Canadian rolled 6061 alloy billets, Isreali cutting tools, Chinese acetaL plastic, Taiwanese carbon fibre, USA epoxy resin, Mexican 2025 stainless steel rod, Japanese cars to transport me and my products, Arabian oil to fuel my car, Australian cutting fluid and lubricating oil to run in my manufacturing operations, Kenyan coffee for my morning tea, German shipping lines to transport my goods, etc., etc.

    Will I be more competitive. No. That is the downside, Expenses go up.

    QE in Japan has done wonders for their economy? Yeah right. After eight rounds of QE where is the Japanese economy?

    Nearly a decade after Japan’s central bank first experimented with the policy, the country remains mired in deflation, a general decline in wages and prices that has crippled its economy.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704444304575628403102379326.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  94. “Japan has proven, quantitative easing has very little impact on inflation”

    …. is not the same as

    “QE in Japan has done wonders for their economy”

    The Japanese ARE doing the same stupid things (did many of them first) as the USA and Eurozone (not ALL the same stupid things, the Europeans did something extra special with the Euro ). Stretching out a crash so that it lasts forever rather than cratering the bad banks seems to be the mode of operation there.

    The problem Gerrit, is that unless we match THEIR devaluations, you’ll STILL suffer the price penalty when you try to sell… and the money all goes to the overseas banks. As the man said… “You can pay me now or you can pay me later”.

    There are ways to EVENTUALLY resolve some of your problems here – which products could be produced here and reasonably support local manufacturing.

    Which should the government use to help us with vertically integrated production of “stuff” that is useful to NZ.

    Which is a long term project that doesn’t help you a lot in the interim.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  95. Gerrit

    Will I be more competitive. No. That is the downside, Expenses go up.

    Why weren’t you buying New Zealand manufactured alloy billets Gerrit? Nice to see your business practice is contributing to the loss of 100 jobs at the Tiwai smelter, which is now likely to close. Many of the other products you list are also manufactured in New Zealand.

    You’re expenses might go up, but more Kiwis will be able to afford to buy your products because they will have jobs. You need to look at the big picture Gerrit.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that because of upgrades, New Zealand is about to produce more fuel. We already produce about half of what we use. Therefore the argument that our petroleum based fuel costs will go up because of QE is questionable.

    QE in Japan has done wonders for their economy? Yeah right. After eight rounds of QE where is the Japanese economy?

    Eight rounds? Japan’s QE started in 2001 and ended in 2006. Japan generally had inflation after its QE regime, which incidentally more than doubled Japans GDP. From 1991 it increased at 0.5%, but after QE was introduced it averaged an increase each year of 1.9%. The flow on effects of this should not be underestimated.

    In Japans case in terms of their more recent deflation, you need to factor in their zero rate policy, the fall in asset values, their asset bubble bursting, a consequential increase in insolvency of companies that invested in real estate, a lax banking regime that allowed bad debts to languish before implementing foreclosures, a lack of proper laws to ensure debts were guaranteed, which in turn caused banks to not be able to lend as much, which drove people to invest offshore because of an unstable banking system in Japan, not to mention the continued growth of China that can undercut most other producing countries around the world, including New Zealand.

    New Zealand faces many of the same issues and potential problems as Japan (the similarities with overinvestment in nonproductive real estate is uncanny), and yet we can learn from their experience. Japan used 7% of their GDP in its QE program, but had better results than both the US and UK that used a lot more. Perhaps New Zealand can do even better with less.

    If we don’t try QE, what do you propose Gerrit? Because the current system is not working.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  96. jackal,

    Your interpretation of aluminium billet is different them mine.

    Tiwai produces ingots of raw aluminium. That needs to be further processed into various grades and rolled into billet stock. NZL does not have an aluminium rolling plant capable of producing plate stock from 20 to 200mm thick or sheet stock from 1mm to 20mm in various grades (3000 to 7000 series).

    Maybe the government can print some money and invest in an aluminnium rolling plant? Think Big.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  97. Maybe the government can print some money and invest in an aluminnium rolling plant? Think Big.

    You are suspected of sarcasm but your suggestion is sensible. :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  98. BJ,

    As I said earlier

    Distributing “free” money is only going to work if it is matched by an equal value in production and consumption.

    With the rider that once that production and consumption has returned the distributed “free” money, it is withdrawn from circulation.

    And therein lies the rub.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  99. Gerrit, what’s the difference between borrowing money from offshore and printing it? It’s only that debt cost places a cap on how much can be borrowed, why not self regulate and print that amount of money and avoid the debt cost entirely?

    Any inflationary impact of either, is mitigated by a higher OCR or constraint on bank operation – such as increasing the capital requirements of banks and requiring higher levels of local saving to lending. You will note that the QE is occuring at a time when banks are soaking up capital to meet new Basel standards.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  100. Gerrit

    Your interpretation of aluminium billet is different them mine.

    Actually the Tiwai Peninsula smelter produces Ingot (70%), Billet and Rolling Block (30%). Around 90% of this is exported with the rest being sold locally. Nalco then further refines aluminum into nearly any grade and specification, including Heavy Gauge Flat Sheet, at its Hamilton extrusion plant. They have outlets throughout New Zealand. Your ignorance of this makes me wonder if you actually know what you’re talking about Gerrit, as it appears you haven’t been entirely honest in your argument?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  101. Hmmm… according to their brochure –

    Tiwai point supplies much of NALCO’s aluminium billet used in the manufacture of your extrusion profiles.

    So I have to think that this may be something we can DEFINITELY do. They do import some mill profiles so it is not clear to me whether something in particular is available through the vertical channel but it is definitely in the realm of stuff we are already able to or very nearly able to handle. Put a CO2 price on the Aluminium and this mob will be providing the cheapest Al based product in NZ.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  102. Jackal… unlike some others here, Gerrit doesn’t make stuff up and he is eminently sincere in his arguments.

    and there may be good reasons why he is buying Canadian… (Do they throw in cases of Maple Syrup? That’d probably get me :-) ).

    I don’t think he deserves any accusations. He IS making us work the answer thoroughly… but I doubt very much that he is knowingly saying anything to mislead… He does know a lot about his area and it may be that you’ve found something he didn’t know about. I didn’t know about it either. It changes my perspective on some Al based products that I might be in the market for… so you’ve done me a service as well.

    It is a good thing to know. If we could cast an Engine Block and Pistons we’d be a fair way to making something like a Volkswagen. All in NZ.

    :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  103. As one who is on a regular basis picking up stock at Nalco in East Tamaki (Head offic and main distribution centre) I can tell you the plate stock is difinetally not from Tiwai.

    Seen stock from Canada, Brazil, and the USA there, none from Tiwai. You may get a local furnace creating the pencils for extrusions (1200 grade) but plate and sheet require four high rolling mills.

    Alcan in Wiri use to have a casting furnace and two x four high rolling mills togather with a foil mill and two extrusion presses. But they have been gone 20 years plus (had a job in the foil mill for a while running the four high mill there).

    Now there are a number of other alloy extruding companies (McKecnie in New Plymouth and Ulrich in Hamilton so dont know where they get the extrusion pencils from.

    if we look at the Tiwai web sit is says

    Aluminium ingot – rolling slab (sheet ingot), extrusion billet, forging stock, rod, foundry and remelt ingot as well as specialty products such as Duralcan and other metal matrix composites

    So ingots only, no finished products

    http://www.riotintoalcan.com/index_ourproducts.asp

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  104. BJ,

    Casting is easy and not overly expensive to set up commercially. There was a very good casting company set up in the old Ford factory in Plunket Ave in Wiri. Casting wheels, chassis and suspension components in alloy for cars worldwide.

    But they got squeezed out by cheaper Chinese casting.

    There is a guy in Avondale with a nine axis mill that can machine alloy engine block and gear box components very easily.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  105. I suspected that about Nalco because they didn’t advert 100% and they weren’t specifying. Combined with your assertion it added up that way.

    Still, 60% ain’t zero…

    ==============

    So we stopped being able to do Al slabs when we decided to stop supporting Kiwi industries and instead opted to buy all our manufactured goods overseas.

    The New Zealand disease has thus been damaging us for more than 20 years

    Now, with the CO2 not being taxed but needing desperately to BE taxed, we are instead looking at shutting Tiwai, one of a few realistically carbon neutral producers of Aluminium on the planet. Most foreign sourced Al comes from coal burning electricity.

    If I were plotting the “death by stupidity” of the human species I could scarcely better this course of inaction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  106. Tiwai’s aluminium is not carbon neutral if the information about the carbon anodes that I have been given is correct. The anodes are consumed and release CO2. My understanding is that they are made from fossil fuels rather than fresh biomass.

    I suspect that Nalco use offshore aluminium rather than Tiwai’s because Tiwai’s aluminium is a higher quality than Nalco need.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  107. BJ – that liquid metal battery sounds interesting but also scary. What isn’t being said on the brochure is that to keep the Magnesium liquid, the whole battery is kept rather hot. I’m just guessing here, but I don’t see any other way of keeping the metals liquid.

    While the aim may be the same as the Vanadium redox batteries, the technique is very different, and I am guessing that it is less suitable for longer duration storage – higher standing losses. The 70% efficiency sounds lower than some alternatives too, but I don’t feel like digging out those figures right now. Still good luck to them. There may be enough niche applications to make it commercially viable.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  108. Gerrit

    Alcan in Wiri use to have a casting furnace and two x four high rolling mills together with a foil mill and two extrusion presses. But they have been gone 20 years plus (had a job in the foil mill for a while running the four high mill there).

    Perhaps you’re right, as it has been over twenty years since I last sourced sheet aluminum that I know was manufactured in New Zealand. But if that’s the case, what do you think has contributed to the demise of that manufacturing capability, considering we have many industries here that have demand for such products?

    Your link to the RioTinto website doesn’t resolve the debate though, with Nalco’s Product Catalogue (PDF) saying:

    At the heart of NALCO’s manufacturing operations is our extrusion plant and powder coating lines, based in Hamilton.

    [...]

    Our Branches stock and supply the widest range of sheet, plate, treadplate, coil and extruded aluminium profiles, along with custom design and extrude to order services.

    Their catalogue also says that some of their export service include standard extrusion, plate and rolled products. You don’t usually just import product to export it again. They go onto list numerous aluminum products, but do not disclose if they’re locally produced, imported or from old stock manufactured in New Zealand.

    Personally I think we should be looking towards closed loop manufacturing where we produce everything we need for any given manufacturing job we’re undertaking. God knows we have the skill and resources available to do pretty much anything. We should be targeting specific industries that we’re good at where there is a niche in the market to be exploited. The most benefit can be achieved by not competing directly with larger economies, but by producing high end high value and quality products.

    This is especially true with the recent decline in demand for our raw materials. If there’s no demand for our products, resources or the services we provide, demand will continue to decline and our economy will stagnate into deflation. The only real solution is to increase R+D and have a government that is willing to guide manufacturing into new areas. That’s only achievable if you manage to keep our best and brightest in New Zealand, which National is obviously not doing. So there needs to be a number of solutions, not just QE.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  109. BJ says “The New Zealand disease has thus been damaging us for more than 20 years”

    1970
    Manufacturing was 28% of world GDP
    Manufacturing was 22% of NZ GDP

    2010
    Manufacturing was 16% of world GDP (12% drop)
    Manufacturing was 15% of NZ GDP (7% drop)

    So the decline in manufacturing here, is only around half of the decline across the globe (in the USA it halved from 24% to 12%), contrary to the myth you try to perpetrate.

    We obviously need to manufacture as much as we can, but to look for economic salvation is such a small (and decreasing sector), while ignoring where the other 85% (and growing) of GDP comes from, is economic thinking that’s half a century out of date.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  110. Except that your example of comparing Manufacturing as a percentage of the World OR the US GDP is meaningless. All it takes is a moments thought to understand that.

    China has picked up the manufacturing that the has been throwing away with both hands for decades… and the global GDP balance has been distorted by the “contributions” of the Financial sector.

    … and there are SEVERAL aspects to the decline of manufacturing as a percentage of GDP… including the rise of automation, but that, which has happened in both the USA and China, wasn’t what happened HERE Photonz. What happened here was we quit producing stuff entirely, and decided instead to buy if from overseas because that is cheaper.

    That’s fatal. That’s STUPID! …and that is the idea you are continually supporting in this forum.

    Either we build some stuff here or we turn into a bunch of peasant tenant farmers working the land we formerly owned. There isn’t a 3rd way. We can’t maintain this society by building nothing and selling our assets to fund the difference.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  111. BJ says “That’s fatal. That’s STUPID! …and that is the idea you are continually supporting in this forum.”

    Nowhere near as stupid as going back to the days where it cost so much to produce things for such a small uncompetitive market that nobody could afford to buy anything.

    Over $100,000 in todays money to buy a poorly put together piece of junk like a Hillman Hunter car – 2-3 years total salary for the average person in those days.

    The only reason anyone would touch the things was that any decent cars were overpriced with a 60% tarrif.

    So nobody could afford anything decent, and overseas travel writers regularly remarked that going to NZ was like a timewarp from three decades earlier.

    So we go back to your idea we’ll get economic salvation from a sector than is just 15% of GDP and falling. Just like it’s falling world wide.

    To show the futility of your hope – lets pretend we could do the unimaginable – opposite of the trend across the world – and double our manufacturing over 15 years (what other first world country has ever done that in modern times?).

    That would give us – wait for it – a 1% growth per year GDP.

    And this is your great economic plan to save us?

    The only way we could ever achieve any such increase in manufacturing is if we wanted to accept third world wages.

    Do you have any economic revival plans based on any other globally declining sectors?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  112. Even in China manufacturing has declined as a percentage of GDP from over 40% in the late 70s to less than 30% in 2010. See
    http://www.bls.gov/fls/chartbook/2012/chart1.3.pdf

    When I’m looking for something to invest in for the future, I find it’s best to avoid graphs going in that direction and look for sectors that are growing – not in steady decline decade after decade, across the whole globe.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  113. Oh good Photonz. Invest in the financial sector then, because the people who produce nothing but fraud and damage to their economies, are the only ones who are showing a profit these days.

    Nobody has advocated doing the union inspired “make work” foolishness that NZ managed to talk itself into in the aftermath of the collapse of the dairy single-market monopoly. You like to draw out that extreme, but we haven’t been advocating extremes like that. You DO realize that there is something BETWEEN that and the laissez-faire free market you worship?

    “and overseas travel writers regularly remarked that going to NZ was like a timewarp from three decades earlier.”

    You say that like it would be an entirely bad thing. Natural growth is slower but a lot more sustainable than artificially stimulated growth and the rest of the planet has been doing the latter for the past 50 years.

    Keynes, known as “pinwheel John” to his neighbors in the cemetery, would be disgusted that his notion of goosing the economy when it falters turned into the principle of goosing it all the time no matter what.

    Giving us economies on crack cocaine. Expectations that exceed anything the real world can support. Growth at any cost.

    STUPID Photonz. Unbelievably stupid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  114. Industry doesn’t have to be a huge part of our economy Photonz, but if we want to balance our trade we have to have some.

    I think you missed the point.

    Whatever China has been doing (and their economy is remarkably opaque in terms of what they are actually doing), they have not tossed their industrial economy into the toilet. Heck, the USA hasn’t ENTIRELY done that, despite the massive outsourcing of production. A lot of stuff is still made there… using robots… built in Japan.

    So neither country is really trying to have no industrial production.

    That’s what WE are doing…

    for all the wrong reasons…

    …and it is about as stupid as anything I’ve ever seen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  115. More negative rubbish from BJ “So neither country is really trying to have no industrial production. That’s what WE are doing… ”

    Our decline is MUCH LESS than the US (manufacturing % of GDP 1970-2010)

    24% to 12% of GDP for USA (12% drop or 1/2)
    22% to 15% of GDP for NZ (7% drop or 1/3)

    I don’t think I even known anybody to be so negative about things that haven’t actually happened (well perhaps Kerry and Jackal).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  116. Try again Photonz….

    The reality in THIS country is that the industrial production wasn’t replaced by anything at all. It fell and as the percent of GDP changes when the GDP changes.

    The NZ GDP per capita has increased much slower than everyone elses.

    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2002/02-14/01.htm

    You are keen on comparing us with other countries. I am not.

    I want to get a handle on what WE are doing, not comparisons of GDP which I have to pick and tease at to figure out which part of the Gross Distorted Product is changing and why.

    In this case the USA got other sectors to work.

    Manufacturing shrank as a percentage because it shrank AND because other things in their GDP grew. Industry and Manufacturing leave out things like Microsoft and Apple and Google and the like. Where’s our contribution to that? Trademe, where we sell each other our used goods?

    You work harder at being deceptive and I am going to get positively cross with you. I am already cross with Stats New Zealand for THIS page

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/NationalAccounts/Contribution-to-gdp.aspx

    - which provides our percentages of GDP information without ONCE mentioning what the actual GDP is.

    Reflects a degree of dishonesty this sort of thing does. Lying with statistics is an art form. I’ve seen it in the USA, I see it here.

    Major manufacturing and industry disappear from NZ continually, from railcars to F&P and the servicing of NZ aircraft… all gone. Those were the ones we were able to almost compete at. Comparative advantage and cheap foreign crap and unemployment. They go together like an unholy trinity – worshipped by the Right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  117. More negative nonsense from BJ “Invest in the financial sector then, because the people who produce nothing but fraud and damage to their economies, are the only ones who are showing a profit these days.”

    Apart from the financial sector only being 7% of GDP, they provide a great service.

    - they allow me to instantly ask for funds from all parts of the world (which I’ve just done)
    - they give me advice on running my business.
    - they do my accounts and tax for me
    - they insure my vehicles, business, travel, house, contents, life etc.
    - they look after and invest my kiwisaver funds
    - they loan me money for my house
    - they give me credit to make purchases in NZ and overseas.
    - they give me advice on investments, and in particular in depth research on all major NZ and Australian companies.
    - they allow me to buy or sell shares in NZ, Aus, or 40 South American companies (or anywhere else, all in one share), with a one minute phone call.
    - they allow me to have foreign currency accounts in NZ to hedge to make my business more secure and certain against future exchange rate shifts.
    - they allow me make and take payments in NZ by phone or internet or automatically without the need to go to a bank
    - they allow me to receive funds instantly from the other side of the world (I have asked for, and received funds from the UK in the couple of minutes taken to write this)
    - they allow me to buy a new car, and pay if off over two year with zero interest, saving substantially on purchasing outright.

    - and they loan me money to expand my business

    So in your miserable world, the finance sector is evil and does nothing.

    In my world, there’s hardly a business in the country that would run and grow without it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  118. I would have to agree to an extent with photonz1 here.

    The ‘real’ finance sector is critically important to facilitate business. This includes the traditional role of retail and business banking and is predicated on a trust relationship.

    The ‘speculative’ finance sector has almost no value and is a mechanism of the rentier class and thus, should be severely restricted in it’s operations.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  119. That is what they should be doing. And if they had been restricted to what they should be doing and the amount they can clip for doing so a lot of the world would not be in the shit they are now.

    .
    We can thank Paul Keating that we are not having to do bail out banks here. For keeping Aussie banks uder a tight leash. And Kiwibank for dampening down other banks gouging.

    As it is: How many trillions is it taking to bail out the finance sector? Again!
    How many people, who had nothing to do with it, are expected to live in poverty and starve to keep the finance sector in the black?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  120. photon

    We obviously need to manufacture as much as we can, but to look for economic salvation is such a small (and decreasing sector), while ignoring where the other 85% (and growing) of GDP comes from, is economic thinking that’s half a century out of date.

    Which goes against John Keys (and Gerrit’s) argument that the current exchange rate is good for manufacturing businesses that need to import various components from overseas. If our purely export industries make up a larger percentage of our GDP, then it makes sense to try to keep the exchange rate in their favour.

    To compensate for the impact on manufacturing businesses that import much of their product, we need to encourage closed loop manufacturing processes in conjunction with closed loop manufacturing resource planning, resource management and supply chain management. If the government helped businesses in these areas, with a view of more co-operative practices, New Zealand would increase income from our main export industries and likely achieve growth in manufacturing.

    At a time when global economic growth is losing momentum, encouraging our internal economy to grow is vital.

    To show the futility of your hope – lets pretend we could do the unimaginable – opposite of the trend across the world – and double our manufacturing over 15 years (what other first world country has ever done that in modern times?).

    Actually Japan is currently bucking the trend with strong growth in manufacturing. Their recent annualised rate of growth was 4.1%, far greater than any other country. This makes a mockery of Gerrit’s claim that QE didn’t work for Japan. A hiccup in 2009 doesn’t mean QE from 2001 to 2006 wasn’t beneficial. It also makes a mockery of the argument that Japan needs nuclear power, as most of that growth has occurred while all their reactors were shutdown.

    I don’t think I even known anybody to be so negative about things that haven’t actually happened (well perhaps Kerry and Jackal).

    I’m negative about National not doing anything to help New Zealanders keep their jobs. The reason nothing has happened is because the right-wing worship the outdated ideology of laissez-faire economics. If that’s not voodooism, I don’t know what is.

    Apart from the financial sector only being 7% of GDP, they provide a great service.

    Apparently they also help set up tax havens for arms dealers and money laundering. But you can just put your head back in the sand about that one as well if you like photon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  121. Right Photonz.

    I owe the banksters a living because they make it convenient for you to borrow from overseas to buy stuff from overseas increasing the national balance of trade problems both directly by your purchases and indirectly by your interest payments… with no resolution of that problem being offered except to sell off New Zealand to the highest bidders. You’d be almost as much of a traitor to the country as John Key is.

    Still… I don’t actually object to bankers and banks doing what they are supposed to be doing… they should be NZ banks and bankers for us here in NZ though.

    The “financial sector” is more than the banks and bankers even when counting the foreign banks as “ours”. The entire point of the problem with the foreign sourced loans and foreign banks is THAT THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING TO OUR ECONOMY… those profits go to their economy.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/229032/aussie-banks-cream-profits-nz

    Why do you hate New Zealand Photonz?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  122. Gerrit

    Be mindful that a very large component of the 4.1% Japanese growth incease is rebuild activity after their recent tsunami disaster.

    Actually investment for the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami added less than 0.3% growth while private consumption with higher demand for fuel efficient cars that received a boost from government subsidies contributed more to GDP in the same time period. So clearly government policy can invigorate the economy and create jobs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  123. BJ says “Right Photonz. I owe the banksters a living….”

    If you don’t like what they do, don’t use their services.

    BJ says “Why do you hate New Zealand Photonz?”

    I’m not the one full of misery, doom and gloom who hates everything here.

    And if it’s not bad enough for you, you invent bad stuff to be miserable about.

    BJ says “those profits go to their economy”

    If you don’t like the profits going offshore, buy shares in the banks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 (-2)

  124. Jackal says “Actually Japan is currently bucking the trend with strong growth in manufacturing.”

    The operative word being “currently”.

    If you look at the long term trend for Japan, manufacturing has dropped from 35% of GDP in 1970 to 20% of GDP in 2010

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  125. photon

    If you look at the long term trend for Japan, manufacturing has dropped from 35% of GDP in 1970 to 20% of GDP in 2010

    And I guess if we had figures going back to the stone ages, you could argue that there was no recent growth (across all sectors) in Japans manufacturing? Interesting that their growth occurred on the back of government policy changes. You haven’t bothered to try and discount that aspect of my argument.

    If Japan can increase manufacturing in the face of disaster, why can’t New Zealand? All it takes is some initiative from the government, which is sadly lacking from National party ranks. All they’re interested in is trying the same old failed policies, that didn’t work then and won’t work now.

    National determined to increase exodus

    Be ready to wave goodbye to more of your loved ones, especially if they’re just trying to start out in the workforce…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  126. Jackal says “If Japan can increase manufacturing in the face of disaster, why can’t New Zealand? ”

    Do you not know what a dead cat bounce is?

    There was a massive plummet in manufacturing globally in 08/09. In 2010 WORLD manufacturing bounced back – Japan, Germany, Netherlands, US, Finland – the WHOLE WORLD – had a big lift.

    But NOT back up to levels of 2008. Or any of the decades before that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  127. Jackal said “It also makes a mockery of the argument that Japan needs nuclear power, as most of that growth has occurred while all their reactors were shutdown.”

    However Japan has had to import a lot more oil and gas to fuel their generators to replace the power from their nukes, and it may be very interesting to see what happens to gas and oil prices in the next few years when supplies fall further and demand increases – about when our own supplies of gas are likely to fall short of our needs.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  128. photon

    Do you not know what a dead cat bounce is?

    Who’s all doom and gloom now?

    I think you’ve used the wrong description there photon… It’s usually used to describe a short rise in stocks or securities considered to be of low value, not an entire sector of the economy. Manufacturing is not of low value, because without it nothing else in the economy will work and if there’s underinvestment, there are considerable negative knock on effects to other industries.

    But perhaps you should stick to your hedge funds there photon, because as long as you make your money, who gives a damn about doing whats best for the economy eh!

    Trevor

    However Japan has had to import a lot more oil and gas to fuel their generators to replace the power from their nukes.

    They also implemented the Renewables Act (PDF), which took effect in July. It initiated a feed-in tariff policy for solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass etc generated electricity.

    It’s perhaps the most agressive move towards sustainability from any country so far, with guaranteed returns likely to encourage a lot of foreign investment. It’s also a controllable system meaning that when there is demand they can ensure returns are higher to encourage more investment to meet that demand.

    Because of that policy, I think their reliance on imported fossil fuels won’t last that long. People said the same thing about Germany, but there is no crisis there and they are still an economic powerhouse, which I might add is partly due to a vibrant manufacturing export sector. Germany has ensured its GHG emissions are reducing since they started closing their Nuclear power plants. New Zealand in contrast hasn’t reduced emissions, which is stink to say the least.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  129. Jackal says “I think you’ve used the wrong description there photon”

    No – it perfectly decribed what happened.

    Manufacturing has been trending downwards for decades. It took a massive hit at the start of the GFC, has recovered part of those losses, but will continue on the long term downward trend.

    Anybody looking to manufacturing for economic salvation is half a century out of date in their economic theory.

    It used to cost 30 days pay to buy a microwave – now it costs one days pay.

    It used to cost 40 hours pay to buy an electric drill – now it costs 4.

    Within ten years of my dad retiring, I owned more “manufactured” things that he did at retirement, despite being 30 and on a lower wage (only 10 years into my working life compared to 40).

    I pretty much now have all the manufactured goods I will ever need (and I’m not on a high income).

    So like many people, a smaller and smaller percentage of my expenditure will be on manufactured goods.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  130. photon

    Anybody looking to manufacturing for economic salvation is half a century out of date in their economic theory.

    Whoever said it would be an economic salvation photon? You really need to stop bending the truth.

    It’s our reliance on manufactured goods and the fact that they are still designed to break (Planned obsolescence) that will ensure manufacturing survives in its current form for a long time.

    By saying it’s a dead cat bouncing it appears you think it won’t. What will happen then photon… Will we all go back to the horse and cart? Perhaps only those countries that haven’t moved to protect their manufacturing industries, like New Zealand.

    But that’s OK, because you’ve surrounded yourself with all the manufactured things you could ever need. I sometimes pity your lack of vision photon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  131. Yes, and not a single New Zealander was employed in producing anything along the way.

    Nor was export of New Zealand manufactured goods increased to balance your consumption.

    Increasing consumption without increasing production… creating a society with a few winners and a lot of losers… (based on one time sales of productive assets) and nothing in between. That’s your ideal Photonz, it has to be, because that is what every economic policy you’ve ever supported has tended towards. I would pity you for your ignorance but I am too tired to bother.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  132. Jackal – good on Japan for actively supporting renewable generation. However they have closed about 50GW of nuclear generation, and they will have to invest in an awful lot of renewable generation and supporting storage to get anywhere close to replacing that. I don’t see them being able to harness that much renewable power any time soon. They simply don’t have enough untapped good renewable energy sources. That means they will have to import a lot of energy, competing with a number of other countries in similar positions.

    Watch those gas prices rise…

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  133. Trevor

    They simply don’t have enough untapped good renewable energy sources.

    I have to disagree with you there Trevor, there’s no real limit to the potential for Japan’s renewable energy sources.

    Investment since their renewables policy was implemented in July means they will have 26% replaced by around 2015. If investment continues at the same pace, they will meet their target of replacing all nuclear energy with renewables by 2030.

    Farrar’s advice won’t save National

    So far only the left-wing show signs of making the changes required to ensure financial, environmental and social security for all New Zealanders. The alternative is more of the same from National, who have proven themselves to be totally incompetent! Their mismanagement is being reflected in the latest poll results, for which they have nobody to blame but themselves…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  134. Jackal

    Renewable resources have everything to do with energy density and accessibility. Japan has no rivers to dam for hydro, no empty space (and at too high a latitude) for major solar and very little wind. It might have significant geothermal, but it QUITE limited in its resources compared to NZ and on a per-capita basis, positively poverty-stricken.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  135. BJ

    Japan has no rivers to dam for hydro, no empty space (and at too high a latitude) for major solar and very little wind. It might have significant geothermal, but it QUITE limited in its resources compared to NZ and on a per-capita basis, positively poverty-stricken.

    What a load of nonsense!

    Japan only needs to replace a quarter of it’s generating capacity by shutting down nuclear reactors. Hydroelectricity already generates about one-third of their power. Japan has around 65 operational hydroelectric power stations that produced 69.2 TWh of electricity in 2009. Japan has virtually no geothermal.

    Most of that 13 GW of new renewable energy by 2015 is solar… Do you honestly believe they’re installing millions of yens worth of panels if they’re not going to work BJ? The same with wind generation. If the technology doesn’t work why are they installing it? None of the wind turbines failed in the earthquake or tsunami, perhaps that has something to do with it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  136. Not nonsense.

    The words “high-latitude” and “winter” are important, and while I left out the word “additional” in front of the hydro it is pretty easy for anyone to understand it anyway. Their hydro capacity can probably be expanded very little, and installed capacity is currently at 47GWe, less than the nuclear capacity.

    Their installed Solar resource is around 5 GWe and by the end of 2015 they could get another 10… with another 10 years before the installed capacity matches the nuclear plant they shut down, and that capacity is effective only at noon on a sunny summer day. They’ll need EASILY 3 times that and storage for 2 times that to replace the nukes.

    My point was that they DO NOT have the sort of resources we have, and they have a far far higher need.

    They may well install panels and turbines at a good clip but it isn’t going to come close to satisfying their actual requirements.

    What else can they actually do though? They are experiencing the truth of something I have pointed out often here. They need every erg of renewable/carbon free power that they can generate.

    So think about how many square kilometers of wind farm are required to replace a Nuclear plant. Consider what happens to their power as the sun goes down – in Winter.

    We’ve done these calculations and been over these numbers before. It isn’t funny. Not on an island with their population density.

    They desperately need some of those liquid batteries or Vanadium batteries or something similar. A lot of them…. and a smaller population… and I suspect that to some extent they are betting on both.

    It is not a bad bet to make, but it is FAR from being anything like our resources per capita.

    Remembering that conversation I am pretty sure I allowed as something that is POSSIBLE is still not necessarily practical. Japan will be making a lot of extra CO2 for a long time if it just dumps the nukes, though I DO expect that they will ultimately sort out the battery storage issue in the process.

    2030 IS a long time from now Jackal, and leaving the nukes running is a pretty good idea for them. Compare 2030 to how quickly we could replace every erg of coal powered electricity we use on a similar priority basis.

    Their energy imports were something like 85% of their total energy in 2009. Not sure what now.

    Your words were “there’s no real limit to the potential” and that’s not very meaningful. The timeframes involved are important and you left them out.

    In the long run? Sure, but relative to us they are poverty stricken with respect to renewable energy resources and they are going to be struggling to replace the Nukes.

    As Trevor said… watch their imports of energy and watch the gas prices rise.

    With any luck they’ll have an attack of sanity after next winter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  137. BJ

    They may well install panels and turbines at a good clip but it isn’t going to come close to satisfying their actual requirements.

    Rubbish BJ. The projected 13 GW is 26% of their previous nuclear power generation. That figure is gained by adding the yearly projected output of the various renewable energy projects together. Obviously they account for daylight hours and winter.

    Are you saying that they’re grossly overestimating the projected output or something? They have no reason to lie BJ. So three or four years to replace a quarter means they will easily meet their target by 2030. Sorry BJ, the nuclear industry is dying in Japan, in more ways than one.

    We’ve done these calculations and been over these numbers before. It isn’t funny. Not on an island with their population density.

    No we haven’t… There have been some baseless assertions that Japan doesn’t have enough renewable capacity to replace its nuclear power plants, but nothing more.

    2030 IS a long time from now Jackal, and leaving the nukes running is a pretty good idea for them. Compare 2030 to how quickly we could replace every erg of coal powered electricity we use on a similar priority basis.

    You really are waffling BJ. 2030 is their target, it’s likely they will beat it by at least five years. Replacing 50 GW of energy supply in fifteen years is pretty quick if you ask me.

    Leaving their nuclear power plants running, many of which were damaged (and still are) in the Earthquake, is not a good idea. Any Japanese government that moves to start their reactors will lose. The vast majority of Japanese do not want nuclear power.

    Your words were “there’s no real limit to the potential” and that’s not very meaningful. The timeframes involved are important and you left them out.

    BJ, there is no practical limit to renewable energy sources because installations can be placed practically anywhere. Many of these areas are wasted space, meaning there is no inconvenience. The timeframes are important, and I have included the important ones. Meanwhile Japan is continuing to grow without nuclear power.

    An environment ministry taskforce in Japan recently said their greenhouse gas emissions may drop 15% by 2020 from 1990 levels and 20% by 2030 if the country increases the use of energy saving measures and clean energy. They have more recently increased GHG by 4.2% since Fukushima. However one scenario shows that a 31% reduction is achievable without nuclear power by 2030.

    As Trevor said… watch their imports of energy and watch the gas prices rise.

    The fuel efficient cars policy will help in that respect. They have also reduced their consumption in other ways so their reliance on fossil fuels will be limited.

    With any luck they’ll have an attack of sanity after next winter.

    It was insane to rely on nukes in the first place, or do you think the Fukushima disaster is an acceptable occurrence BJ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  138. Jackal said “That figure is gained by adding the yearly projected output of the various renewable energy projects together. Obviously they account for daylight hours and winter.”

    Can you provide a link to your sources please? In general, the figures that are provided are the peak output powers, because they sound better, and are easier to obtain – the manufacturers print these values on the “boiler plate”.

    For wind, multiply the peak power by something like 30-35% for most sites. New Zealand is lucky in that we have world class wind resources, with capacity factors getting up towards 50% in some areas.

    For solar photovoltaic, the capacity factor is even more dependent on the climate, and 25% would be lucky, achievable only in deserts. I would expect more like 15% to 20%, unless the panels are steerable. Note that the capacity factor is largely independent of latitude, although more ground area is required at higher latitudes.

    There is also the law of diminishing returns. Finding sites for the first 10-20GW may be easy, but finding sites for the last 10-20GW will be much harder. Also storage isn’t needed for intermittent renewables whose output is only a fraction of the minimum demand, but it is needed when the output of the intermittent renewables exceeds or even gets close to the minimum demand if the energy isn’t going to be lost.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  139. Even Ricardo never suggested that England stop producing wine altogether.

    Because as an intelligent person he knew that would put England’s wine production and pricing totally at the mercy of Portugal.

    And. No way should we leave control of our economy to offshore bankers.

    We already see the benefit of our own banks in the Aussies banks reduced fees, when Kiwibank was started.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  140. Rubbish BJ. The projected 13 GW is 26% of their previous nuclear power generation. That figure is gained by adding the yearly projected output of the various renewable energy projects together. Obviously they account for daylight hours and winter.

    No Jackal… it is NOT obvious.

    The normal rating of a solar panel is what it can generate when the sun IS shining on it. They’re not rated by average daily output.


    “Are you saying that they’re grossly overestimating the projected output or something?”

    No I am saying that YOU did. I understood their numbers as what they are… rated power output.


    “So three or four years to replace a quarter means they will easily meet their target by 2030″

    Right

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/19/japan-2040-nuclear-power-exit

    Then how come they are phasing the nuclear out over even longer than that? They’re talking about 2040… and actually NOT talking about it…

    Which jibes well with the building rate that I understand of this. They need a minimum of 3 times the rated capacity of the nukes + coal + gas plus storage, to run their country on solar and wind.

    The problem isn’t replacing nukes. The problem is replacing everything but Hydro.

    Any less than that and they have to have more fossil fuels… operative word here is MORE as their hydrocarbon plants are a large percentage of their total electricity mix and it does absolutely NO good to use Solar to shut down Nuclear when there are Coal plants still running. You consider the priorities and the speed with which they can build the renewables in, and the storage they need.

    2009
    28.8% coal
    24.7% gas
    8.8% oil
    26.9% nuclear
    7.9% hydro
    2.2% other (solar and wind etc)

    “There have been some baseless assertions that Japan doesn’t have enough renewable capacity to replace its nuclear power plants, but nothing more.”

    I don’t remember any of THOSE Jackal… I remember though, working through the number of square kilometers of wind turbines you’d need to replace one nuclear plant though. Wasn’t a small number.

    Meanwhile Japan is continuing to grow without nuclear power.

    Japan hasn’t “grown” in more than a decade… Their economic system flatlined on them. Nothing to do with energy, they have a financial industry problem that just won’t quit.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth

    no practical limit to renewable energy sources because installations can be placed practically anywhere.

    There are several practical limits Jackal, but in this I am more in agreement than disagreement. Japan can EVENTUALLY replace their nukes. I doubt that I EVER said that it could not be done. What I am saying now is that it cannot be done easily or quickly. Nor AS easily and quickly as it could be done here.

    I was making a comparison to NZ and observing their limitations. We are rich in renewable resources and they are poor. There is no viable storage for them to install – yet. Their available renewables are intermittent, and the most promising one is most hindered by winter and high latitudes. They need to replace coal and gas first.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  141. Note the expectation of rising oil and gas prices in that article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/19/japan-2040-nuclear-power-exit

    I expect gas prices in New Zealand to rise in line with the world trend, even though New Zealand does not currently import or export gas. New Zealand does export energy intensive products (including methanol and urea) which are made using our gas, and if there is enough difference between our gas prices and our imported oil prices, there will be a movement to use gas to substitute for oil for transport and the like.

    So wasting gas by burning it in power stations is very short sighted where we have renewable alternatives.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  142. Trevor29

    Can you provide a link to your sources please?

    I did the calculation a few days ago so it would take some time to look through the literally thousands of links in my history. Would you mind just searching for it yourself?

    In general, the figures that are provided are the peak output powers, because they sound better, and are easier to obtain – the manufacturers print these values on the “boiler plate”.

    The article was pretty specific that the output figures were what will be supplied to the grid… Not the maximum able to be supplied if all renewable generation was operating at peak all the time.

    There is also the law of diminishing returns. Finding sites for the first 10-20GW may be easy, but finding sites for the last 10-20GW will be much harder.

    Perhaps, but it seems that the industries that are investing are mainly Japanese. The land they already own will be just as much a factor in choosing location as optimum performance.

    To argue there is not enough space to place enough solar panels in Japan to meet their energy needs is just silly btw. Have a look at google maps to see how much free space there is. The rate of deployment is more dependent on changes to Japan’s renewable energy feed-in tariff (FiT).

    Also storage isn’t needed for intermittent renewables whose output is only a fraction of the minimum demand, but it is needed when the output of the intermittent renewables exceeds or even gets close to the minimum demand if the energy isn’t going to be lost.

    A fraction of the minimum demand? There’s already $17 billion of investments in renewables for Japan since July this year. Japan’s government will create an approximately $628 billion clean energy market by 2020 through deregulation and subsidies to promote development of renewable energy and low-emission cars. Fraction is definitely the wrong word to use.

    Renewable energy will supply approximately 40% of Japans electricity by 2030, which is obviously not a fraction of minimum demand. It will be a very efficient system, because their hydro will be able to supply energy when the solar isn’t. Solar makes up around 83% of new developments.

    BJ

    The normal rating of a solar panel is what it can generate when the sun IS shining on it. They’re not rated by average daily output.

    I have supplied the figures for the projected output from all new renewable development in Japan. I have not used the peak output rating from the solar panels.

    No I am saying that YOU did. I understood their numbers as what they are… rated power output.

    I’m not a liar BJ. From my calculations, 13 GW is what will be supplied to the grid by 2015, not peak rated power output. They have built over 1 GW of this in three months, effectively already replacing one of their highly dangerous 54 nuclear reactors.

    You consider the priorities and the speed with which they can build the renewables in, and the storage they need.

    Solar is very quick to build. They will not need much storage for solar generated energy because it generates when most industries are operational. Any peak times can be accounted for with Japans Hydroelectricity generation, which you tried to say doesn’t exist.

    Japan hasn’t “grown” in more than a decade… Their economic system flatlined on them. Nothing to do with energy, they have a financial industry problem that just won’t quit.

    Japan continues to grow, partly due to the quantitative easing they implemented between 2001 and 2006. Here’s a nice graph to show Japan’s growth over the last few decades. Historically, from 1980 until 2012, Japan growth averaged 0.5% per year.

    What I am saying now is that it cannot be done easily or quickly. Nor AS easily and quickly as it could be done here.

    It would appear that Japan is going to do it easily and quickly in relative terms. 15 years to replace 50 GW of electricity generation is quick if you ask me. The fact that New Zealand could do the same thing and has more capability is irrelevant to Japan’s developments.

    They need to replace coal and gas first.

    And run the risk of having another Fukushima? I have to disagree with you there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  143. Jackal… I didn’t call you a liar. I said that you are wrong about something. That happens sometimes. Happens more often to people who describe something I’ve said as “rubbish”.

    You’ve claimed something about their renewable builds but neither shown your numbers nor linked to a site that provides them. I didn’t argue nor ask for additional information at that point. Now I have to because you’ve repeated your statement and I am not able to find the information you are using. Not unusual.

    It seems you are so blase’ about climate change that you think that it is fine to keep on emitting CO2. Their risk of another Fukushima just dropped to negligible as they are building barriers around the other vulnerable plants and implementing actual checks on the industry…. I doubt that ANY Japanese engineer will be less than 100% rigorous in his risk analysis relating to a nuclear plant for at least the next century.

    People seldom make catastrophic mistakes of the same sort. We learning from mistakes but still ignore the ones that haven’t hurt us… yet.

    We’ll find some DIFFERENT way to break things. In this case, your case, the climate change issue is being pushed to one side. I do not know what your problem with nuclear energy is… but it isn’t a byproduct of some satanic ritual.

    ” The fact that New Zealand could do the same thing and has more capability is irrelevant to Japan’s developments.”

    — but not to my original observation which was to compare their situation to ours.

    Any peak times can be accounted for with Japans Hydroelectricity generation, which you tried to say doesn’t exist.

    No Jackal.. I said it was small and could not grow. It IS small and there is no conventional (easy) hydro growth available.

    Relative to everything else, Japan’s hydro is a very small slice of their generation.

    http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/electric_power_sources/index.html

    http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/optimal_combination/index.html

    Although the steady development of hydroelectric power plants is desired, Japan has used nearly all potential sites for constructing large-scale hydroelectric facilities, and so recent developments have been on a smaller scale.

    Stating an absolute value of GWe capacity without considering it as a percentage of power generation was misleading on your part. Do notice how the hydro has flatlined. There is no real growth available in that sector.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  144. BJ

    It seems you are so blase’ about climate change that you think that it is fine to keep on emitting CO2.

    I’m not blasé about climate change at all. I just happen to think the risk from hundreds of old reactors kept operating after their used by date has expired is just as dangerous.

    Their risk of another Fukushima just dropped to negligible as they are building barriers around the other vulnerable plants and implementing actual checks on the industry.

    That’s if you believe the tsunami and not the earthquake caused the fukushima disaster.

    Stating an absolute value of GWe capacity without considering it as a percentage of power generation was misleading on your part.

    ? First you say you hadn’t called me a liar and then you again say I’m misleading you. I stated an approximate percentage of how much new renewable generation will give Japan as a value of their current generation.

    Do notice how the hydro has flatlined. There is no real growth available in that sector.

    You are right to a degree… Japan already has around 46 GW generated through hydroelectricity. It only managed to increase hydro by 0.03 GW in 2011.

    I am bored with this debate BJ, and this thread is to large, so I will not be commenting further.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  145. I am bored with this debate BJ, and this thread is to large, so I will not be commenting further.

    Suits me down to the ground.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  146. Jackal – the capacity factor of solar photovoltaic power in Japan is probably under 1/5 (20%). To generate an average of 40GW would therefore require an installed solar photovoltaic total of over 200GW. This is more than Japan’s peak demand, so to harness this power requires storage. To make matters worse, some of the other generation needs to keep running either so that it is ready to meet the demand when the sun sets, or to maintain water flows, etc. So they either need a lot of storage, or they need other forms of renewables other than solar photovoltaic. (Solar thermal power could help here.)

    Essentially solar photovoltaic is a good solution for getting renewable generation up from a low level but isn’t suitable for providing large portions of the electricity supply without additional technology (such as storage, demand management, etc).

    And if you want to claim that your interpretation of a probably ambiguous or poorly worded article is correct without providing the source, then you will just have to accept that we don’t choose to believe your interpretation. We have given you rational arguments for why we question your interpretation. We can’t search for your source as it is too vague and we have no way of knowing if we find the right document, so if you want to convince readers, you will need to find your source again and allow us to see what it said.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  147. Trevor29

    We can’t search for your source as it is too vague.

    A Reuters article on renewable energy projects in Japan is too vague?

    The exact calculation is a little under 13 GW, but I rounded this up because the article isn’t listing all the renewable energy projects Japan has underway and doesn’t stipulate the exact output of some installations.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  148. Jackal – thank you for providing that link. To me, nothing in that article suggests that the capacity values quoted are averaged over the year. I doubt that they have done enough research to even be able to estimate the annual output of any of these schemes. Remember that they are a collection of small schemes, such as individual buildings with solar panels. Instead I believe they have simply taken the manufacturer’s peak ratings and added them all together to come up with a simple number, which while not meaningless doesn’t have the meaning that you believe it to.

    If it is any consolation, I doubt that many of the reporters involved with stories like this one have realised that these figures are not directly comparable with the outputs of the nuclear and fossil fueled plants. It annoys me that they haven’t taken the time to find out the expected annual energy generation (in GWH or MWH) for these schemes, not even to get some idea of the expected FIT payments into these schemes.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  149. I’d have thought Reuters would do better than that given the state of Germany’s solar power wedge… OTOH… it may be that they expect that everyone knows the power factors that need to be supplied because by now pretty much all Germans do. They’re definitely not discussing the power aspect as much as the money issue though…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  150. Jackal – you didn’t mention “Reuters” until you posted the link, so yes your reference was too vague.

    Japan is a small country with a big population. Space is precious. What doesn’t have buildings on it is farmed if practical, except for reserves and the like. Areas which aren’t farmed or built on but which could be developed for solar are likely to have terrain that would make a mountain goat think twice – not the cheapest areas to build solar. I never said that there wasn’t enough area, just that they wouldn’t be able to build enough solar (and other renewables) soon.

    The problem is the low capacity factor of the solar panels. It is night half the time. The sun shines at angles exceeding 45 degrees to the panels more than half the remaining time. If you do the simple maths, you get an answer of 1/Pi – about 30%. However the shorter days in winter are not compensated by longer days in summer because the sun shines on the back of the panels at summer sunrise and sunset. Also the sun is above or below the angle of the panels except at the equinoxes, reducing the capacity further, and the panel effectiveness drops off faster than a cosine with respect to the sun angle. Putting these factors together results in a value around 1/4 (25%), but this doesn’t include any allowances for clouds, smog, dust, or snow, or tall buildings – all of which can block the sunlight from reaching the panels. A capacity factor of 1/5 (20%) seems optimistic but even that would mean 200GW of panel to give an average of 40GW of generation. And they don’t have enough hydro capacity to meet their needs when the sun isn’t shining high in the sky.

    Solar (photovoltaic) will be part of their answer – just not as big a part as you expect.

    Trevor

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  151. Trevor29

    Solar (photovoltaic) will be part of their answer – just not as big a part as you expect.

    They predict that 40% of Japans electricity will be supplied by renewables by 2030. That’s what I expect as well. Considering the large amount of investment and 33,000 different renewable energy projects that have been granted subsidies so far, it seems like a reasonable expectation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  152. If they predict that 40% of Japan’s electricity will be supplied by renewables by 2030, then they are being very pessimistic, given that you have stated above (11 Oct, 4:25pm) that hydroelectricity is already supplying about 1/3 with another 1% or so from wind. The prediction would therefore translate to an increase in renewable generation of only 6% in 18 years!

    Trevor

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  153. Trevor29

    If they predict that 40% of Japan’s electricity will be supplied by renewables by 2030, then they are being very pessimistic, given that you have stated above (11 Oct, 4:25pm) that hydroelectricity is already supplying about 1/3.

    That 1/3 figure was according to an article I read. I have subsequently unearthed a report (PDF) that said Hydro accounted for around 8% of overal production in 2011, with other renewables accounting for 1%… This report might also have some of the costings you were after Trevor.

    The prediction would therefore translate to an increase in renewable generation of only 6% in 18 years!

    Actually the increase in renewable production would be 31% in 18 years. I’m optimistically hopeful they will achieve their goal of 40% renewable energy before 2030.

    I find it interesting that both you and BJ have your tits in a tangle over this, while you are failing to accept that nuclear energy is not an alternative because it is not safe. I ask again, do you think disasters like Fukushima are an acceptable risk?

    You’re both also failing to supply any information that closing down reactors is bad in terms of climate change, because despite what you both seem to believe, Japans GHG emissions have decreased by 2% (PDF) since they switched off their nuclear reactors.

    I was wondering… Do either of you have a vested interested in promoting nuclear power?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  154. Jackal

    You just had to drag me back into it, didn’t you. Your funeral mate.

    I looked at your link.

    It contains statistics through 2011.

    The Fukushima Tsunami (and it was the Tsunami that caused the disaster) was in March of 2011, any reduction in 2011 itself has to reflect the destruction of infrastructure and industrial capacity, and the shutdown of their industry following the Tsunami. Understanding of what is to happen in the future cannot be drawn from the sliver of data in that paper and there is no indication of a 4% decline since the reactors were taken offline. There is 4% since 1990, largely due to the declines in the global economic crisis… and a very different thing.

    Two reactors are already back on line. More are expected to follow.

    You’re both also failing to supply any information that closing down reactors is bad in terms of climate change,

    You can’t be serious

    Even with an increased share of renewables, the shift away from nuclear under any of the proposed scenarios will lead to greater use of fossil fuels.

    http://theconversation.edu.au/is-japans-nuclear-free-pathway-an-environmentally-friendly-choice-9807

    The logic is clear. There are only three possibilities. All assume building renewable infrastructure as fast as humanly possible across the entire island.

    1. A reduction of industry demand through efficiency increases (in what is probably some of the most efficient industrial infrastructure in the world) and reduction in industrial output reduces energy demand to match the shortfalls.

    2. More Coal and Gas are burned to make them up.

    3. The Nuclear Plants that are in fact safe, continue to operate through their end-of-life and are phased out in a controlled way.

    There is not in any economical sense, as we have shown, an option of plastering enough solar cells over the countryside and erecting enough wind turbines – to maintain the economy they have without doing either 2 or 3.

    I’m going to make up a scenario here for you.

    To do 1 + 2 without increasing emissions means eliminating coal entirely, and switching to imported Gas. The infrastructure changes would be immense and they still would do no better than breaking even.

    I doubt that it would succeed in breaking even but that’s your best case, and the results for Japanese industry are bad enough that I don’t see it happening… and they have to do BETTER than breaking even if we are going to get CO2 reduction.

    1. You have an extremely exaggerated perception of the risks of Nuclear Energy. It isn’t uncommon… particularly among Greens but it isn’t quite valid. You can do nuclear power safely or you can do it for profit. There is no “and” in the sentence before this one. The US Navy has done quite well on nuclear safety. It has not tried to make money or save money in doing so.

    2. The Japanese aren’t going to have another Fukushima. They’ve figured out that the safety aspects of some of their siting decisions were sub-optimal (to put it mildly) and some reactors WILL never restart. Others are getting seawalls. That’s a given and it is absolutely necessary.

    3. Other reactors suffered the same earthquake, were closer to the epicenter, and didn’t leak anything, were in fact used as shelters after the Tsunami and quake.

    http://topnews.us/content/250052-nuke-plant-closer-fukushima-epicenter-last-year-s-earthquake-largely-undamaged-why

    http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20120319p2a00m0na020000c.html

    Which speaks again, to my initial point.

    4. The Japanese will shut down the worst and continue with what they can do…

    Japan has effectively abandoned a commitment to end its reliance on nuclear power by 2040 amid pressure from the country’s business lobby, dropping a deadline recommended by a cabinet panel only days ago.

    The cabinet on Tuesday gave only a vague endorsement of the panel’s report, released last Friday, and dropped any mention of plans to complete the phase-out some time in the 2030s.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/19/japan-2040-nuclear-power-exit

    Personally I don’t think they actually know what they will do. They can try to get to a post-industrial economy, but as I have pointed out before, “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AS LONG AS PEOPLE USE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS!!” – Wendy of METAR

    Whether they actually have an industrial future will affect their energy requirements significantly, and that is a choice outside The question of what their emissions profile will be. Nations have been known to make mistakes about how to answer the questions involved too… NZ is a case in point.

    5. You continue to be insulting as well, as the suggestion that we have something to do with the nuclear power industry is yet another example. If I were a nuclear rep, I’d make it obvious.

    I am not in any way related to or involved in the nuclear industry. I just dislike fearmongering and foolishness.

    6. Even assuming that it were as dangerous as you imagine,

    , do you think disasters like Fukushima are an acceptable risk?

    …it would STILL be an acceptable risk if CO2 emissions are the alternative. Lose the whole planet because I am unwilling to risk a part of it? No… I don’t think so. Get your priorities straight.

    The way Japan can safely get rid of nukes is to decimate its industrial sector.

    The other options… don’t work. It CAN do that. It won’t be very good for the Japanese, (destroying industry isn’t good for us here in NZ either), but they can decide to do that.

    I know you don’t like it Jackal. I know that nuclear energy is only advocated by the spawn of satan… and I know you aren’t going to stop anytime soon… but I am not the person you really ought to fight with here. Nor am I really happy to have to argue with you. There are SO many better arguments to have.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  155. BJ

    There is no indication of a 4% decline since the reactors were taken offline.

    Did you even read the report BJ? Here’s the relevent part:

    Japan made the largest change to its fuel mix for electricity production, in an attempt to ensure higher nuclear safety in the wake of the Fukushima accident of 11 March 2011. Before the accident, Japan was the third largest consumer of nuclear fuel, following the United States and France, with a nuclear share in electricity production averaged for 2010 at about 29%. The 280 TWh in 2010 generated by the 54 nuclear reactors (WEC, 2011) have, since May 2012, been reduced to zero, and subsequently partially compensated by power cuts and boosted gas-fired power generation.

    There has been a reduction in Japan’s GHG emissions of 2% since their nuclear reactors went offline. What part of that is difficult to understand?

    You can’t be serious

    I am serious! You said that taking the reactors offline would increase GHG emissions. You have not supplied any evidence to back up your assertion. I’ve supplied evidence that shows you are wrong!

    The link you have now supplied claims:

    The shift away from nuclear under any of the proposed scenarios will lead to greater use of fossil fuels.

    However The link they provide to confirm this claim states:

    Three scenarios that can reduce dependence on nuclear energy as well as on fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions are prepared based on the above four perspectives. The choice of energy options must be made taking the element of economic efficiency into consideration.

    If you continue to promote disinformation, I will feel obliged to point out that it’s bullshit!

    There is not in any economical sense, as we have shown, an option of plastering enough solar cells over the countryside and erecting enough wind turbines – to maintain the economy they have without doing either 2 or 3.

    So how do you explain their economy growing while all their nuclear reactors were shut down?

    To do 1 + 2 without increasing emissions means eliminating coal entirely, and switching to imported Gas. The infrastructure changes would be immense and they still would do no better than breaking even.

    So what infrastructure does Japan already have in place in terms of natural gas BJ… You must obviously know this to make such a claim?

    and they have to do BETTER than breaking even if we are going to get CO2 reduction.

    What do you mean ‘if’ there is a reduction. Japan has reduced its emissions by 2%. What part of that can’t you comprehend?

    You can do nuclear power safely or you can do it for profit.

    No nuclear power plant designed using todays technology is safe.

    The US Navy has done quite well on nuclear safety.

    We’ve already had that debate and you lost after I linked to numerous US army and navy nuclear accidents.

    Other reactors suffered the same earthquake, were closer to the epicenter, and didn’t leak anything

    The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant had two of its three power lines that were needed to cool reactors fail during aftershocks. If the third line broke, they could have had a meltdown as well. If you think that’s safe BJ, you’re definition of the word safe is most definitely incorrect!

    You’re obviously not aware that other nuclear power plants in Japan that were further away from the earthquakes epicenter were also known to have failed.

    used as shelters after the Tsunami and quake.

    What nuclear power plants were used as shelters?

    You continue to be insulting as well, as the suggestion that we have something to do with the nuclear power industry is yet another example. If I were a nuclear rep, I’d make it obvious.

    It’s not insulting to ask a question BJ. Your actions make it appear that you in fact have a vested interest.

    it would STILL be an acceptable risk if CO2 emissions are the alternative.

    But CO2 emissions aren’t the alternative… Safe cheap and practically unlimited renewable energy is. Nuclear power is therefore not an acceptable risk.

    I am not the person you really ought to fight with here. Nor am I really happy to have to argue with you. There are SO many better arguments to have.

    I disagree with you BJ, and I’m trying to change your mind with the facts of the matter.

    The debate between nuclear versus renewable energy seems important… Although I can see we’re starting to go around in circles. At least open your eyes to some of the results when nuclear goes wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  156. Jackal – you seem to think importing shiploads of CNG or LNG to fuel gas-fired generators is safer than nuclear power. If any of those ships has a major accident and the gas leaks out and is then ignited, the result could be a poor man’s nuke – a very large and powerful fireball that could wipe out large areas about as effectively as the tsunami.

    And if you say that the radiation from nuclear plants is unsafe, don’t forget that using fossil fuels also releases trapped radioactive material including Radon gas.

    Neither BJ or I are advocating continual use of nuclear power into next century, but if we don’t allow some countries to use nuclear power in the next 50 years or so, then the CO2 emissions will do even more harm.

    And your “when nuclear goes wrong” link is the worst form of scaremongering I have encountered in quite a while, with absolutely no explanations or details to show how any of those images are the result of nuclear power going wrong. For all I know, some of those images show the results of atom bomb radiation, while others are the results of living in a naturally high radiation area, or from radiation unrelated to a nuclear power plant. Some could also be the result of chemicals or just genetic mutations which were blame on radiation because it could be without any proof of the actual cause. It is not a useful contribution to this debate.

    Trevor.

    PS: Like BJ, I have no vested interest in nuclear power, and I oppose its use in New Zealand, primarily because – unlike Japan – we don’t need it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  157. Jackal… the passage you quote STILL says exactly nothing about a 4% decline in CO2 emissions. It says nothing about a 2% decline in emissions. It says nothing about ANY decline in emissions… it describes a reduction in the use of Nuclear Fuel.

    You cannot back up an assertion by citing something that doesn’t. There are 34 references to Japan in the paper you linked. Not one says what you want it to say.

    =============

    I provided the logic and explained the scenarios in which lower CO2 could be managed by the Japanese… maybe… if they accepted the partial destruction of their economy.

    It also linked to commentary on which has been submitted as a scientific paper to “Energy” which is behind a paywall.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032109001166

    The people who wrote that article provide the following in it – you are quoting from the scenarios on which THEY are commenting.

    “In particular, the greenhouse-gas emissions of the nuclear-free scenario can reach up to about 430kg per megawatt hour. By comparison, in the 35% nuclear-power scenario, it is only 267kg per megawatt hour, in spite of the higher renewable energy share of the former. Except for the differing nuclear capacity, in all scenarios the ratio of coal to gas power had the largest influence on greenhouse-gas emissions.”

    It isn’t bullshit Jackal… the only way they can reduce their Greenhouse footprint is by decimating their industrial base AND shifting to gas…

    WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I POINTED OUT.

    So calling it bullshit reflects badly on you.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    No nuclear power plant designed using todays technology is safe.

    Just wrong. Not in a small way either. Today’s technology includes passive cooling measures and standards that would have made Fukushima impossible… and Chernobyl could never have been built.

    ———–

    The US Navy has done quite well on nuclear safety.

    We’ve already had that debate and you lost after I linked to numerous US army and navy nuclear accidents.

    I enjoy fiction as much as the next person, but this casual rewrite of history remains unbelievable. Linking to miniscule releases isn’t winning. All industrial processes have have SOME accidents and cause some risk and many release some radiation

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=marcellus-shale-natural-gas-drilling-radioactive-wastewater

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Connecticut_power_plant_explosion

    – more deaths in a single blast than from the all the nuclear propulsion plants of the US Navy in the past 50 years.

    The US Navy nuclear safety record is significantly better than any for-profit agency’s safety record, better than the safety record of the coal industry, better than the safety record of the natural gas industry…

    You did not “win”. I looked your references up and determined the amount of release in each case…. AND I noted that it was self-reported by the US Navy. Because unlike a lot of industries, they monitor themselves.

    I looked at the people involved in that cite too…

    http://www.prop1.org/2000/accident/1989/8907a1.htm

    an article that is a beat up for Greenpeace, a scare story with a lot of speculation and even more deception than usual. It fails to differentiate between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in order to get enough drama not to be completely laughable, and it mixes the US with everyone else.

    ————————

    The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant had two of its three power lines that were needed to cool reactors fail during aftershocks. If the third line broke, they could have had a meltdown as well. If you think that’s safe BJ, you’re definition of the word safe is most definitely incorrect!

    The earthquake was a 9 on the Richter scale and the plant, despite its older technology, had sufficient redundancy to neither fail nor leak.

    If your standard is for it to be “undamaged” you have a different definition of safety than I do, and I am afraid it is not a very useful one.

    Onagawa was used as a temporary shelter.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-japan-nuclear-tsunami-idUSTRE79J0B420111020

    ——————

    To change my mind about the facts you’d have to be correct about the facts. I’ve seen nothing from you that persuades me that you understand this better than we do.

    You are scaremongering and you are distracting ALL of us from things we would be better off doing.

    You say…

    But CO2 emissions aren’t the alternative… Safe cheap and practically unlimited renewable energy is. Nuclear power is therefore not an acceptable risk.

    Which is true in NZ for the NZ economy. You’ve noticed I hope, that I have not advocated that NZ needs nuclear power.

    …but you again fail to consider the time frames involved and the effects on the societies involved. I discussed those already.

    …and so it is NOT true of most of the rest of the developed nations of the world in the mid-term. We have to reduce CO2 emissions AND we have a civilization to keep running… and it takes a lot of work to get renewables up and running to replace the stuff that is dug out of the ground.

    Replacing the nukes comes AFTER replacing the gas and coal, except where they’ve built the things to standards that a Rickover grad would gag on – and those have to be shut and replaced (with something and in such cases I would accept a Gas Turbine) immediately.

    My expectation is that about 10% of the current crop of reactors in Japan needs to be shuttered and never re-opened… 50% of those in the former USSR… and about 2% in the USA/France/Germany/Canada. Those are SWAGS based on what I have learned over the years, of the nature of the people running the countries.

    We need, in the developed world, to have any decent shot at not destroying the climate in which our civilization developed, to cut our CO2 emissions by about 80%… by 2030.

    http://www.monbiot.com/2006/09/21/an-87-cut-by-2030/

    You think about the risk of this

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html

    - against the risk even, of another Fukushima.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  158. Jackal – the link you provided to show that “Japan’s GHG emissions have decreased by 2%” in 2011 (actually titled “Trends in Global CO2 Emissions 2012 Report”):
    http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
    has some other interesting information:

    Total global solar photovoltaic installed capacity increased in 2011 by 75% to around 69.2GW which could produce on average 85TWH per year (page 21). Dividing one by the other gives an equivalent operational time of 1228 hours, or a capacity factor of just 14% (1/7).

    Japan installed 1.3GW of solar photovoltaic in 2011 (page 22) so if their capacity factor is similar, the average output of that new installed solar photovoltaic is about 182MW. While useful, this is a fraction of the output of any one nuclear power plant or most fossil fuelled plants. (Each of the four coal-fired units at Huntly is 250MW.)

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  159. Trevor29

    You seem to think importing shiploads of CNG or LNG to fuel gas-fired generators is safer than nuclear power.

    Because it is safer. Can you point out an accident from liquid petroleum gas similar in proportion to the numerous nuclear accidents that have occurred around the world?

    And if you say that the radiation from nuclear plants is unsafe, don’t forget that using fossil fuels also releases trapped radioactive material including Radon gas.

    Nuclear power plants are unsafe, and so are fossil fuels in more ways than you have mentioned. In fact a major scientific study has recently linked emissions from diesel fuel to an increase in cancer. Whether the huge increase in the rate of cancer is more a result of nuclear testing and accidents than our reliance on fossil fuels is debatable, mainly because of the nature of the pollutants.

    But if we don’t allow some countries to use nuclear power in the next 50 years or so.

    I don’t think three guys debating on Frogblog’s general thread is going to change the way countries organise their power generation.

    Then the CO2 emissions will do even more harm.

    Which seems to be an argument based on a lack of evidence and somewhat refuted by Germany and Japans experiences.

    The problem is that many countries are continuing to use their old reactors after their used by date has expired and they’re not bothering to implement enough renewable energy to reduce their fossil fuels either. If they continue in this way, it’s only a matter of time before another Fukushima, Three Mile Island or Chenobyl etc happens again.

    And your “when nuclear goes wrong” link is the worst form of scaremongering I have encountered in quite a while, with absolutely no explanations or details to show how any of those images are the result of nuclear power going wrong.

    Most of those human deformities are the result of exposure to nuclear radiation. You can check (if you have the stomach) by clicking on the image and then loading the associated webpage. You will find that a lot of them relate to areas where fallout from the Chernobyl disaster occurred.

    It is not a useful contribution to this debate.

    I have to disagree there… Both you and BJ need to be aware of what you’re advocating for.

    Dividing one by the other gives an equivalent operational time of 1228 hours, or a capacity factor of just 14% (1/7).

    Being that no documentation I’ve read says photovoltaic gives a capacity factor of 14%, you clearly don’t simply divide one by the other. Don’t ignore the fact that nuclear has a capacity factor of around 60% as well, which is important to consider if you want to correctly calculate the equivalent energy supplied.

    BJ

    It says nothing about a 2% decline in emissions. It says nothing about ANY decline in emissions… it describes a reduction in the use of Nuclear Fuel.

    You cannot back up an assertion by citing something that doesn’t. There are 34 references to Japan in the paper you linked. Not one says what you want it to say.

    ? I sometimes wonder if you have a selective memory or something BJ. Here is one of the relevant paragraphs:

    The fact that global emissions continued this historical growth trend in 2011 seems remarkable at first sight, considering that in many OECD countries CO2 emissions in fact decreased – in the European Union by 3%, in the United States by 2% and in Japan by 2% – mainly due to weak economic conditions in many countries, mild winter weather in several countries and high oil prices.

    Emphasis mine. The report is called: Trends in global co2 emissions – 2012 Report. It was not written before Japans earthquake as you seem to believe.

    The only way they can reduce their Greenhouse footprint is by decimating their industrial base AND shifting to gas…

    So how do you explain them reducing their CO2 emissions by 2% while growing their economy? Because the reality of the situation shows that the commentary in the articles you linked to is incorrect speculation.

    Just wrong. Not in a small way either. Today’s technology includes passive cooling measures and standards that would have made Fukushima impossible… and Chernobyl could never have been built.

    Nuclear reactors are still designed and built in similar ways as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima etc and use most of the same technology. There is no such thing as a failsafe nuclear reactor BJ… Mainly because of a thing called human error.

    Linking to miniscule releases isn’t winning. All industrial processes have have SOME accidents and cause some risk and many release some radiation.

    I linked to a number of lists documenting Navy nuclear accidents. Some of these are not “minuscule releases” of radioactive substances. You would only think that if you have no concept of what radiation actually is.

    Here’s one of the links again. Only the oil and gas industry comes anywhere near that type of industrial negligence towards the environment and people’s safety. Did you notice that I’m not an advocate for the oil and gas industry BJ?

    More deaths in a single blast than from the all the nuclear propulsion plants of the US Navy in the past 50 years.

    You can only make that claim because of the insidious nature of radiation. The Navy conducted many open air nuclear tests, with the resulting deaths hard to quantify. Here’s a good bit of research into the matter that makes your claim that only six people have died as a result of the Navy’s nuclear program and accidents a sick joke!

    An article that is a beat up for Greenpeace, a scare story with a lot of speculation and even more deception than usual.

    Actually here’s the article I had linked to previously that documents US nuclear accidents. I don’t believe it is associated with Greenpeace, but don’t see it as a problem if it was. It has been my experience that Greenpeace is concerned with the facts. What makes you believe otherwise?

    It fails to differentiate between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in order to get enough drama not to be completely laughable, and it mixes the US with everyone else.

    Why would they need two separate articles? It is pretty clearly stated in each accident whether it’s related to nuclear power or nuclear weapons. The article is only concerned with US accidents. You are looking a bit foolish in trying to make shit up BJ.

    To change my mind about the facts you’d have to be correct about the facts. I’ve seen nothing from you that persuades me that you understand this better than we do.

    I am correct that Japan has continued to grow economically after shutting down all its nuclear reactors. It has also managed to reduce its CO2 emissions. Denying these facts won’t make them go away BJ. Whether you or I have more knowledge is also irrelevant to the facts presented.

    And it takes a lot of work to get renewables up and running to replace the stuff that is dug out of the ground.

    How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor BJ… How long does it take to install the equivalent amount of renewable energy? As I said before, renewables are relatively quick to install in comparison to both nuclear and fossil.

    Replacing the nukes comes AFTER replacing the gas and coal, except where they’ve built the things to standards that a Rickover grad would gag on – and those have to be shut and replaced (with something and in such cases I would accept a Gas Turbine) immediately.

    Wow! A breakthrough! Closing down old reactors that are kept operating past their used by dates is really a no brainer BJ. Thanks for finally accepting that point. Some countries have the time to use renewable sources instead of nuclear and fossil energy. In Japans case, the earthquake and resulting tsunami didn’t give them that luxury, and they had to use natural gas and implement power conservation that was mainly targeted at the public. Productivity does not seem to have been impeded.

    My expectation is that about 10% of the current crop of reactors in Japan needs to be shuttered and never re-opened… 50% of those in the former USSR… and about 2% in the USA/France/Germany/Canada. Those are SWAGS based on what I have learned over the years, of the nature of the people running the countries.

    What are you basing these figures on?

    There’s currently around 400 operational reactors in the world with an installed electric net capacity of about 330 GW. Approximately 50% of these are 20 to 30 years old, with another 25% over thirty years old. More than ten operational reactors are over 40 years old FFS!

    It’s apparent that around 75% of the current operational nuclear reactors in the world are built using the same old technology and designs known to fail.

    We need, in the developed world, to have any decent shot at not destroying the climate in which our civilization developed, to cut our CO2 emissions by about 80%… by 2030.

    I hate to inform you about this BJ (considering you’ll probably say I’m fare-mongering again) but your 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 is just not going to happen.

    The thing that you need to be aware of is that to replace all the outdated nuclear reactors around the world with newer nuclear reactors would take far more capital, time and effort than replacing them with renewables. That is different capital, time and effort needed to replace fossil fuel energy sources with renewables.

    Just to cut you off at the pass, the world can produce enough to meet its demand for renewable energy products in order to replace both fossil and nuclear energy sources. The time frame this can be achieved is dependent on governments implementing policy like the Japanesse Renewables Act and basically adhering to what the public wants.

    It is true that global warming posses a threat, but so do nuclear reactors. I happen to believe that both threats can be removed through the use of renewable energy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  160. Jackal – I have already given a reasoned argument based on simply physics why the capacity factor of solar photovoltaics is under 1/5 (20%), so a global average of 1/7 (14%) is perfectly plausible. You haven’t come up with any figure, so how can you say 1/7 is wrong? Have a look at BJ’s link to “sewtha” (Sustainable Energy – Without The Hot Air) and see David MacKay’s estimate for the UK (page 38) – around 10-11%.

    Feel free to explain your method for calculating the solar photovoltaic capacity factor. Try taking the total energy produced per year and dividing by the product of the installed capacity and the time in one year. If the total energy is in a multiple of WattHours, then the number of hours in a year is required – 8760 (except for leap years). What number do you get?

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  161. Trevor29

    You haven’t come up with any figure, so how can you say 1/7 is wrong?

    Because I’ve read other documentation that says its wrong Trevor. You’re also trying to divide the actual output with the maximum possible output before some of those installations come online, which would give you a lower capacity rating. Given that the cumulative installed capacity of Solar Photovoltaics grew by 71% in 2011 alone, your miscalculation could be considerable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  162. Jackal – care to provide links to that documentation or the actual figures and how they were calculated? The figures that I based my quick calculation on were not the actual output but the estimated annual output, so there is no large systematic error such as you are hoping for. Other values calculated for specific countries or specific installations may diverge, but that doesn’t mean any specific figure is wrong, just that there is site to site variation depending on latitude and climate.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  163. JaCKAL – Leave photos from Chernobyl out of reasoned discussion. Chernobyl was an example of what can go wrong if stupid decisions are made for nationalistic and political reasons and engineers are ignored or pressured. Before construction of Chernobyl was even started, the British, French and American nuclear engineers had independently ruled out designs similar to Chernobyl on safety issues. The reactors at Chernobyl are water cooled, graphite moderated reactors and this combination was considered unsafe for the simple reason that hot water reacts with hot graphite – the well known water-gas reaction – so it was considered that these reactors could not be made safe. Add to that cost-cutting in safety mechanisms, such as a scram system that takes 20 seconds rather than 1/2 a second to fully insert the control rods and disaster is likely. (The operators hit the scram button and waited for the control rods to be inserted – the reactor blew up 4 seconds later while the control rods were still around 80% out, and the nuclear reactions continued after the explosions as a result.) Disaster was nearly guaranteed when the reactor shutdown was postponed until after the crews who had been trained in the procedure went home and the night crew who had no such training came on – due to an “unexpected” but perfectly predictable high demand for power on that day – the last working day of a 4 week quote period. The final straw was a decision to proceed with a safety test despite the reactor condition not being at the required state.

    We are not advocating that reactors such as Chernobyl keep operating – only reactors whose designs and safety mechanisms are sound as determined by independent peer review. Fukushima’s reactors would have failed such a review. Three Mile Island is a better example of what can go wrong when mistakes are made but safety measures are incorporated and open dialog takes place, and a lot was learned from Three Mile Island. Which of your scary photos relate to Three Mile Island?

    Note that most if not all of the reactors we are suggesting keep operating were constructed after Three Mile Island (1979) and incorporate safety features learned from that accident.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  164. Trevor29

    Care to provide links to that documentation or the actual figures and how they were calculated?

    There are numerous websites and documents that state the average worldwide capacity for photovoltaics is well above 14% Trevor.

    The figures that I based my quick calculation on were not the actual output but the estimated annual output, so there is no large systematic error such as you are hoping for.

    Estimated annual output opposed to actual output would seem to be an error Trevor.

    If you want to count lead in time for photovoltaic installations, you should count lead in time for nuclear power as well… Especially if you want to see the investment performance comparison of each energy source. It takes on average around 7 to 10 years to build a nuclear power plant (It used to take 14) opposed to the year on average it usually takes to install large solar arrays.

    Even before you factor in lead time, keep in mind that performance capacity is falling for nuclear power, while it has been increasing for solar.

    We are not advocating that reactors such as Chernobyl keep operating – only reactors whose designs and safety mechanisms are sound as determined by independent peer review.

    Chernobyl used the RBMK-1000 type reactor. It’s good to see you advocating for the ten or so of these still in operation to be shut down. About the same amount were cancelled mid construction after the Chernobyl disaster, which I’m afraid to say is a relevant part of the discussion.

    Which of your scary photos relate to Three Mile Island?

    I thought you wanted to leave the scary photos out of the discussion?

    Note that most if not all of the reactors we are suggesting keep operating were constructed after Three Mile Island (1979) and incorporate safety features learned from that accident.

    So you are advocating for nuclear reactors that are past their safe operational lifespan to keep generating. How stupid! Considering the amount of accidents that have occurred with reactors built using safety features you believe are adequate and the amount of “learning” that has obviously not happened, I do not share your faith in the nuclear industry.

    Tell me Trevor and BJ, would you drive a car that’s over thirty years old if you didn’t have to? And when you go to get a warrant of fitness, and your car fails the inspection, do you just tell the inspector that everything is fine with your car because you haven’t had an accident yet? Does he then give you a warrant of fitness?

    Many of the current operating nuclear reactors have failed numerous safety checks… There is no doubt that pushing the envelope so to speak in terms of continuing to use outdated technology will result in more accidents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  165. I sometimes wonder if you have a selective memory or something BJ. Here is one of the relevant paragraphs:

    The fact that global emissions continued this historical growth trend in 2011 seems remarkable at first sight, considering that in many OECD countries CO2 emissions in fact decreased – in the European Union by 3%, in the United States by 2% and in Japan by 2% – mainly due to weak economic conditions in many countries, mild winter weather in several countries and high oil prices.

    No Jackal… your claim was since the reactors shut down. THOSE numbers are since 1990.

    ————

    ?What are you basing these figures on?

    I said they were SWAGs Jackal. SWAG = Scientific Wild Ass Guess. An opinion based on experience and knowledge of both science and the world, but not yet subjected to scientific analysis.

    It is true that global warming posses a threat, but so do nuclear reactors. I happen to believe that both threats can be removed through the use of renewable energy.

    or

    I hate to inform you about this BJ (considering you’ll probably say I’m fare-mongering again) but your 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 is just not going to happen.

    Do you understand that you believe two completely contradictory things at the same time?

    I happen to also believe both, but I pay more attention to the second one. It is damned unlikely bordering on impossible to get that sort of reduction.

    Countries have to build out renewables to replace CO2 emitting plants as fast as possible, and cut usage through efficiencies… to get anywhere within shouting distance of the required reductions. They aren’t doing THAT because it will cost them too fncking much money.

    To put the nuclear replacement FIRST makes things MUCH worse with the CO2.

    The overly optimistic Japanese expect 23% reduction… but could get by the same sorts of work, a higher level reduction should they do the CO2 FIRST and then the nukes.

    They built nukes because on a profit basis, and on ground that should never have seen a tentative design. The designs themselves were not flawed, accepted tech of that period, but the actual site analysis, which cannot be copied from anywhere, was flawed. In other words… Rickover would have had the Fukushima engineers transferred to weather stations above the arctic circle to count polar bear poo if he’d been in that loop. It was a cheap site to BUILD on though… profitable… until the inevitable.

    The Chinese need desperately to replace coal with nukes and hydro and renewables and natural gas and people pumping bicycles. They however, are building and researching the newest designs.

    The Russians built the worst reactor design on the planet, and still have some of them (Chernobyl type plants) operating. Their industry is the least safe… which is how they come by a need to replace half of their reactors.

    Look at the energy wedge in France… now exporting power to England and Germany.

    The thing that you need to be aware of is that to replace all the outdated nuclear reactors around the world with newer nuclear reactors would take far more capital, time and effort than replacing them with renewables.

    :-) * I * … need to be aware ??? That’s actually funny.

    Did you fail to notice that I allowed that for the reactors deemed immediately unsatisfactory, even a natural gas replacement would be considered?

    The problem IS time.

    Neither Trevor nor I want to keep nukes running forever, or any longer than they have to be. However if the CO2 issue is as difficult as we (AND YOU) just assessed it to be, then there have to be priorities assigned that make sense with respect to the relative dangers. Most running nukes are less of a threat than the CO2… Some are not.

    There are a variety of modular nuke designs being offered now… the reason the French have been successful is a standard plant design… and they’ve fncked up on siting too, in similar fashion to the Japanese, back in 1999. Sometimes I think that any design to go within 30 KM of the ocean should have to be run past a sailor. One has to respect the sea.

    The problem IS time, and we have wasted quite a bit of ours on this meaningless argument. Can we stop?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  166. BJ

    No Jackal… your claim was since the reactors shut down. THOSE numbers are since 1990.

    The 2% reduction is since the reactors closed down. It’s a report for 2012. The comment that it’s a remarkable reduction since 2011 kind of gives it away. A reduction on 1990 levels of 2% would be even more remarkable!

    Interestingly the Japanese predict they will reach a “Long-term 80% reduction target for 2050″ even after accounting for not having nuclear energy. I thought the graph on page 21 of this report (PDF download) was telling. You guys are definitely in a minority with your opinions in comparison to what the Japanese people want.

    This bit is also interesting:

    Democratic Party (ruling) decision 7/9/2012
    • Aim for zero nuclear society
    • Mobilise maximum policy resources for zero-nuclear operation in 2030’s
    • Strictly apply “40 year life time” policy
    • Restart nuclear plants (now 2 out of ten in operation) after check by newly established Nuclear Regulatory Committee
    • No new construction of nuclear plants
    • Renewable energy share to be more than 20% in early 2020’s, and about 40% in early 2030’s
    • Fully revise nuclear fuel cycle

    That means the government is aiming for not having nuclear power… Sorry to burst your bubble there guys.

    An opinion based on experience and knowledge of both science and the world, but not yet subjected to scientific analysis.

    You mean its your opinion without any corroborating information to back it up, and some information that directly refutes it. I have to say you’re opinion is not very relevant to the discussion then.

    Do you understand that you believe two completely contradictory things at the same time?

    There is no contradiction… Both threats can be removed through the use of renewable energy. The fact that they won’t be anytime soon doesn’t negate the fact that they could be if governments implemented the right policies.

    Some running nukes are less of a threat than the CO2… Most are not.

    Fixed it for you.

    The problem IS time, and we have wasted quite a bit of ours on this meaningless argument. Can we stop?

    Nobodies making you write… Are they BJ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  167. Jackal – it is a bit difficult to measure the annual output of a solar photovoltaic installation that hasn’t been running for a year yet. Therefore estimating that output is not a mistake.

    You keep saying that various reports… but you don’t back any of this up.

    I haven’t been discussing lead time, and in any case the lead time of a nuclear power plant that has already been constructed is irrelevant.

    I haven’t seen any comments that the performance capacity of nuclear power plants is falling – do enlighten me. The capacity factor may fall if the demand isn’t there to support running the plant at full output – quite likely if renewables are meeting some of the demand some of the time.

    Meanwhile here is a projection of the consequences of not supporting nuclear power and allowing CO2 levels to increase even further:
    http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/27/continuing-carbon-emissions-could-have-devastating-impacts-on-poor-countries/

    We are not advocating the running of nuclear reactors past the end of their safe operational life. Instead we would recommend operating nuclear reactors past the original expected life if independent competent peer reviews show that it is safe to do so, whether the design is current or not. Obviously more current designs if implemented sensibly are more likely to pass such a review.

    I do share your concerns about the world’s power industries. Try googling for the Keen Energy Systems plant explosion on 7 Feb, 2010 in Middletown, Connecticut or Piper Alpha or Deep Horizon. OSHA investigated the Middletown explosion and found 371 safety violations.

    Incidentally your link to nuclear accidents includes a number of accidents involving nuclear radiation treatment materials and/or industrial uses of radioactive material, which have nothing to do with nuclear power.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  168. Jackal

    The paper you linked to had statistics through 2011, not 2012. Whatever you are looking at now reflects a year in which the Japanese cut back energy usage brutally while they rebuilt infrastructure washed away in the Tsunami. The paper’s 80% by 2050 is an imaginary number. It shows no way to actually achieve it, as there is none that does not continue to include a nuclear wedge.

    There is a surprise for me (not in your links) that they were able to use “Setsuden” effectively enough to function.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/06/20/saving-energy-changing-japan/

    This means that they could, if they restarted the nuclear plants, shut down the fossil fuel plants much faster. I can think of less likely things… but not easily :-)

    It is what our society needs to do overall… a good example.

    ————–

    The news about what the Japanese plan to do has changed several times since the July decision. Hence my comment that they don’t really know what the hell they are going to do. I will add that if THEY don’t know, neither does anyone else. The latest decision which was NOT to affirm the termination of nuclear power is merely the latest. I expect it to change several times more.

    —————

    I identified my opinion quite adequately. Nor is it irrelevant except to your bias. The opinions of experienced scientists and engineers are often corroborated by the facts once the facts are collected…

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

    Notice the number of Chernobyl type reactors still operating. That is an example of a fact that I knew of without having enumerated or looked it up. Do you take NO heed of people who know stuff?

    ———-

    There is no contradiction… Both threats can be removed through the use of renewable energy. The fact that they won’t be anytime soon doesn’t negate the fact that they could be if governments implemented the right policies.

    If by “right policies” you mean the shutting down of the Japanese economy I expect you’d have a point. I don’t think that would be popular with the Japanese though. If they aren’t going to make it by 2030 as you say, then they aren’t going to make it by using renewables. the two statements cannot both be true. What I found about their Setsuden experience leads me to believe that it WOULD actually be possible… barely… and it won’t be done anyway.

    The fact that they will be short of the goal by a significant amount in 2030 is clear enough, and the paper you linked to just now contains this gem.

    “Option to decreasing nuclear power was addressed. Under such conditions, the potential reduction of CO2 emissions in Japan will be significantly reduced.”

    Which is what we are discussing. They will be further behind their targets to the degree that they are shutting down nuclear.

    ———————————

    The current situation in Japan is that the impact on CO2 will be made worse if nuclear is not used/available to bridge the period until renewables (and storage for renewables) have supplanted the CO2 emitting power sources.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  169. Trevor29

    You keep saying that various reports… but you don’t back any of this up.

    I think the problem is that you’re only accounting for Solar thermal collectors, when Solar thermal power plants should also be included. The global capacity factor for solar farms is generally 15 to 40% (the higher figure is for CSP with thermal storage), which is expected to increase in the future. There’s some literature written about this already, why don’t you try searching for it?

    Here’s what the International Energy Agency has to say:

    By 2040, the global installed CSP capacity reaches 715 GW, with an average capacity factor of 45% (3 900 hours per year), thereby providing 2 790 TWh annually. The solar share of 85%, or 2 370 TWh.

    [...]

    By 2050, the global installed capacity reaches 1 089 GW, with an average capacity factor of
    50% (4 380 hours per year), thereby providing 4 770 TWh annually.

    In calculating capacity as a usual measure of performance of different energy sources, you should also factor in conversion and drop. Renewables can be built closer to the end user, therefore they are more efficient. That means for every KW generated by renewables compared to nuclear, more of that energy is able to be consumed by the end user.

    I haven’t been discussing lead time, and in any case the lead time of a nuclear power plant that has already been constructed is irrelevant.

    That makes no sense. Lead time is basically the time it takes from initial investment to production. You should also factor in Mean time between failures (MTBF).

    The long lead time of nuclear reactors and the prohibitively large investment required makes them an inferior investment option compared to renewables.

    Even before you account for lead time, nuclear is comparable with renewables in terms of return on investment. In fact in Japan, nuclear has a generation cost of 8.9 Yen/kWh compared to 8.6 Yen/kWh for offshore wind and 9.9 Yen/kWh for PV.

    I haven’t seen any comments that the performance capacity of nuclear power plants is falling.

    I have not seen it therefore it does not exist. Here’s the link: Global Nuclear Capacity Factor Continues Decline – now 76%

    That doesn’t include plants that close for long periods of time.

    This is more commonly known as Mean time to recovery (MTTR). The capacity factor for nuclear power plants is around 60% if you include MTTR, and even less if you take into account lead time.

    It’s the investment to production ratio that really matters, and you should also factor in the cost of disposing of and the effect from toxic waste and lost land as a result of pollution. Factor those in and nuclear becomes entirely uneconomic.

    The capacity factor may fall if the demand isn’t there to support running the plant at full output – quite likely if renewables are meeting some of the demand some of the time.

    You mean power generated by renewables is outperforming power generated by nuclear power plants?

    Incidentally your link to nuclear accidents includes a number of accidents involving nuclear radiation treatment materials and/or industrial uses of radioactive material, which have nothing to do with nuclear power.

    It’s a list of Nuclear accidents in the US… What’s your point? Are you saying (like BJ) that the list of accidents should be split into different sections, or are you saying that I’m trying to mislead because the list isn’t just concerned with nuclear power accidents?

    The list is pretty specific about what kind of accidents they are… It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to differentiate.

    BJ

    The paper’s 80% by 2050 is an imaginary number. It shows no way to actually achieve it, as there is none that does not continue to include a nuclear wedge.

    There’s that selective reading again. The report has three scenarios to reach a GHG emission reduction of 80% by 2050. One of these scenarios has no nuclear power generation.

    The other interesting thing is that it states there are only 10 nuclear reactors remaining, of which two have been restarted. Japan had 54 reactors. That means around 80% of them (34 reactors) were damaged beyond use during the Earthquake… But I guess you selectively read over that bit as well eh BJ.

    This means that they could, if they restarted the nuclear plants, shut down the fossil fuel plants much faster.

    Nuclear only accounted for 13% of Japan’s primary energy consumption before the earthquake (2010). The vast majority, a staggering 82% is from fossil fuel sources. Even if they restarted all ten viable reactors, that would only potentially reduce fossil fuel consumption by around 2%. They reduced GHG emissions by 2% before restarting reactors.

    Notice the number of Chernobyl type reactors still operating. That is an example of a fact that I knew of without having enumerated or looked it up. Do you take NO heed of people who know stuff?

    I tend to check facts from reputable sources. I find that taking people on face value in the blogosphere is not ideal. You’ve often proven that checking your opinion against the facts is required.

    If by “right policies” you mean the shutting down of the Japanese economy I expect you’d have a point.

    What part of Japans economy still growing don’t you understand BJ?

    If they aren’t going to make it by 2030 as you say, then they aren’t going to make it by using renewables. the two statements cannot both be true.

    What on earth are you on about BJ? I said a global reduction in GHG emissions of 80% isn’t going to happen. You have now conflated two entirely different statements.

    The current situation in Japan is that the impact on CO2 will be made worse if nuclear is not used/available to bridge the period until renewables (and storage for renewables) have supplanted the CO2 emitting power sources.

    A 2% reduction in GHG emissions without relying on nuclear energy sources shows that the situation in Japan is not worse. They could in fact reduce GHG emissions further by switching some nuclear power plants back on, as the report outlines, however this is only going to mean a small reduction in comparison to their overall emissions. In my opinion, it’s not worth the risk.

    In the end Japan will entirely faze out its nuclear reactors… It will also reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuels. In terms of increasing safety and sustainability, the faster they can install renewables the better. Their current deployment is outstripping predictions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  170. There’s that selective reading again. The report has three scenarios to reach a GHG emission reduction of 80% by 2050. One of these scenarios has no nuclear power generation.

    No Jackal… read it again yourself. It does not in ANY of those scenarios or anywhere else for that matter, actually describe a method of reaching the reduction in 2050.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  171. BJ

    No Jackal… read it again yourself. It does not in ANY of those scenarios or anywhere else for that matter, actually describe a method of reaching the reduction in 2050.

    Your contention was that the report didn’t state a scenario of 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 without the use of nuclear power plants. Page 17 states that a faze out of nuclear could be achieved by 2030.

    They are targeting an 80% GHG reduction by 2050. The current scenario they are following predicted a short-term increase in GHG of 5~7%. However they have managed to reduce their emissions by 2%. That would indicate they are on track to reduce their GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 without much reliance on nuclear power.

    I never said Japan couldn’t achieve it, I said the world wouldn’t. Please don’t conflate my argument with your confusion BJ.

    Green energy revolution
    • Mobilize all the policy resources into promote renewable and energy saving technologies
    •Promote saving energy (reduce 10% in electricity and 19% in energy consumption
    • renewables energy to increase 8 times and to 30% of kWh (2030/2010)

    The Zero (nuclear) scenario on Page 18 shows an increase in GHG emissions compared to 1990 levels of +21 to 23%. This is less than the nuclear scenarios, with an increase in GHG emissions of 22 to 25% on 1990 levels. The increasing renewables and decommissioning all reactors scenario is set out to achieve a reduction of 80% by 2050.

    The details of how the Japanese are going about implementing these changes has been outlined in other reports I’ve already linked to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  172. You’ve often proven that checking your opinion against the facts is required.

    You’ve not found me wrong yet in this thread. You’ve CLAIMED a lot but the data shows different.

    Shall we examine the trifling mistakes I haven’t called you on?

    Hydroelectricity already generates about one-third of their power.

    With which you merrily proceeded to insult me until you finally realized that it wasn’t true…. after half a dozen foolish posts. My statement “Japan has no rivers to dam for hydro” was essentially correct and I didn’t beat you over the head with it but you WERE wrong and I WAS right.

    Shall we go to the next one and the next and the next? You are claiming a 2% reduction in CO2 since the shutdown of all the nukes. Except that the last nuke plant wasn’t shut down until MAY 2012!

    Two nukes restarted already so we can’t count after July 2012.

    Your initial link is to a paper that terminated with data from 2011. The REPORT was issued in 2012. Looked at every stat in that paper and it is through 2011. Which is definitely NOT a clean year statistically. A full quarter was with ALL the nukes running and for the whole year the economic picture was depressed and there were STILL nukes running.

    “…seems remarkable at first sight, considering that in many OECD countries CO2 emissions in fact decreased – in the European Union by 3%, in the United States by 2% and in Japan by 2% – mainly due to weak economic conditions in many countries, mild winter weather in several countries and high oil prices. ”

    I told you there was no “since Fukushima” in it. No 2012 stats in it. There isn’t. The only thing is there IS a 2% for 2011 something you almost got right… many reactors were still running in Japan for most of 2011 so there’s no “since Fukushima” or since shutting down the nukes.

    But this was what you based your claims on, and since then you have changed your story again.

    They have more recently increased GHG by 4.2% since Fukushima.

    What you called nonsense was in fact correct.

    ———————————–

    You claim that Japan’s economy is “growing”. There could be a very small growth, depending on the time period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/13/japans-economic-growth-slows

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth

    Now there is a way to make a case that their economy has NOT flatlined, but one has to take into account demographics and it would fair to say that you never pointed it out.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/17/japan-myth-lost-decade

    … and all that really does is make the case that their gross output is/should be declining in tune with population changes but instead remains sort-of constant. That sort of “not shrinking” growth doesn’t actually place any added demands on their energy sector. This is a GOOD thing, but it isn’t what you’ve been talking about. 2012 was a pretty rocky year… the changes on a quarterly basis were pretty large. It remains to be seen how it ends up.

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    It is true that global warming posses a threat, but so do nuclear reactors. I happen to believe that both threats can be removed through the use of renewable energy.

    What on earth are you on about BJ? I said a global reduction in GHG emissions of 80% isn’t going to happen. You have now conflated two entirely different statements.

    Sorry. Parse your FIRST statement more carefully. You effectively said renewables could remove the threat of Global Warming.

    The ~80% reduction is relevant to Japan because it is about number 6 on the list of CO2 emitters (It HAS to do 80% or we can’t get close…), and giving them their due, they are taking it more seriously than you seem to.

    So are renewables going to save us from Global Warming? No, not by your second statement, even though your first claims they can. Of course, I’ve already shown that 80% reduction by 2030-40 is barely feasible WITH the nukes.

    You believe however, that both are true. The difference between “can” and “will” does not excuse this.

    +++++++++++++++

    There is no indication of a 4% decline since the reactors were taken offline.

    Did you even read the report BJ? Here’s the relevent part:

    Japan made the largest change to its fuel mix for electricity production, in an attempt to ensure higher nuclear safety in the wake of the Fukushima accident of 11 March 2011. Before the accident, Japan was the third largest consumer of nuclear fuel, following the United States and France, with a nuclear share in electricity production averaged for 2010 at about 29%. The 280 TWh in 2010 generated by the 54 nuclear reactors (WEC, 2011) have, since May 2012, been reduced to zero, and subsequently partially compensated by power cuts and boosted gas-fired power generation.

    YOU claimed that was somehow relevant to a reduction in CO2. There remains not a single word about it there.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Nuclear only accounted for 13% of Japan’s primary energy consumption before the earthquake (2010).

    So now we add in petrol and diesel for cars/ships and airplanes and not concentrate on Electricity. Diluting your statistics is a form of disinformation. We’re talking about electricity, which IF the CO2 is going to be reduced, has to take up MORE of the transport load. Electric trains and electric cars… yes?

    Early in 2011, nuclear energy accounted for almost 30% of the country’s total electricity production (29% in 2009), from 47.5 GWe of capacity (net) to March 2011, and 44.6 GWe (net) from then.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html

    ================

    The other interesting thing is that it states there are only 10 nuclear reactors remaining, of which two have been restarted. Japan had 54 reactors. That means around 80% of them (34 reactors) were damaged beyond use during the Earthquake…

    Detailed status of EACH reactor is given here. Your claim of only 10 undamaged is risible.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html

    Ridiculous actually given this report at the time of the quake.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/img_gallery/C524E617-BCFD-9891-2C248AA0C83655F9.jpg

    ====================
    “The report is called: Trends in global co2 emissions – 2012 Report. It was not written before Japans earthquake as you seem to believe.

    Where would you have imagined that one from Jackal? Find one word of mine that states that it is a REPORT from 2011. I stated that its statistics ended with 2011, and they do… as with most science this report is FOR the years preceding the date of publication. With even a moments reflection one can see why this must be true.

    ————————

    That’s WAY too much time showing errors omissions and mis-statements here, and doubtless I’ve missed a few… and had not enough time thinking about other things. Think about the damage you are doing THAT way. We all actually agree more than we disagree… even though that isn’t much in evidence and we are ALL wasting time here.

    We all agree that DANGEROUS nuclear plants, particularly the Chernobyl type reactors and reactors without adequate quake and tsunami safety need to close. We all agree that renewables have to be built up as fast as possible. We all agree that the Japanesee have to reduce their CO2 emissions. We all agree that NZ doesn’t need nukes.

    What is it we’re arguing about here? Really?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  173. No Jackal… a target is not a plan, and there is no plan that gets Japan to that reduction in that paper.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  174. Jackal – I take offence when I am selectively quoted to make me look bad. You quoted me as saying “I haven’t seen any comments that the performance capacity of nuclear power plants is falling.” and insulted me by saying “I have not seen it therefore it does not exist.” ignoring my next words ” – do enlighten me.”. Please note that you misquoted me by including the full stop. You go on to refer to an article about capacity factors, so you are confusing capacity and capacity factor – two different terms.

    You have been rubbishing my claim that the capacity factor for solar photovoltaic is 14% (based on 2011 figures) and then you say:
    “The global capacity factor for solar farms is generally 15 to 40% (the higher figure is for CSP with thermal storage)”
    implying that the lower figure of 15% is for solar photovoltaic. But you haven’t given a source or a date for this figure, and it will vary depending on how much solar photovoltaic is in sunny areas and how much is in areas with lower sunshine, like much of Europe.

    In other words, you say my figure is rubbish and then produce effectively the same figure yourself! You then muddy the waters by discussing CSP (solar thermal power) as if this is what we were discussing all along.

    And although it was a long time ago when I was at school, a reduction to 80% of 54 reactors is NOT 34 reactors then or now.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  175. Trevor

    Please note that you misquoted me by including the full stop.

    You can’t seriously be that pedantic?

    You go on to refer to an article about capacity factors, so you are confusing capacity and capacity factor – two different terms.

    When you said “performance capacity” I assumed you meant capacity factor. We were after all discussing capacity factors of nuclear generation as a comparison to renewable energy.

    You have been rubbishing my claim that the capacity factor for solar photovoltaic is 14% (based on 2011 figures).

    The average worldwide capacity factor for PV was 14% some years ago and there have been a number of developments that mean it would have improved. PV instillations increased by more than 70% in 2011 on the previous year… There is a delay between installation and energy generation. You cannot estimate capacity factor on what has been recently installed to give any meaningful calculation. You need to know the actual power generated to correctly calculate the capacity factor. That’s why I disagree with your figure of 14%, I thought I’d explained that to you already Trevor?

    implying that the lower figure of 15% is for solar photovoltaic.

    I don’t think the 15% applies as an average of all PV installations worldwide, as the 15 to 40% capacity factor includes all kinds of solar generation. That is the range of capacity factors, some PV will be higher.

    But you haven’t given a source or a date for this figure.

    That information is from the link I already provided. The International Energy Agency report includes the relevant dates.

    and it will vary depending on how much solar photovoltaic is in sunny areas and how much is in areas with lower sunshine, like much of Europe.

    Yes! We all know the capacity factor of PV varies depending on where it’s situated.

    In other words, you say my figure is rubbish and then produce effectively the same figure yourself!

    As above.

    You then muddy the waters by discussing CSP (solar thermal power) as if this is what we were discussing all along.

    We were discussing renewables compared to nuclear… Why wouldn’t we include CSP?

    And although it was a long time ago when I was at school, a reduction to 80% of 54 reactors is NOT 34 reactors then or now.

    It’s a typo. The actual figure is 44 nuclear reactors in Japan are non operational according to Dr. Shuzo Nishioka Secretary General, LCS-RNet Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) who prepared the document.

    You sound as pathetic as BJ when he says I was intentionally misleading on the hydro generation figure. This debate is getting nowhere.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  176. More woolly thinking…

    “In calculating capacity as a usual measure of performance of different energy sources, you should also factor in conversion and drop. Renewables can be built closer to the end user, therefore they are more efficient. That means for every KW generated by renewables compared to nuclear, more of that energy is able to be consumed by the end user.”

    Renewables have to be built where the energy is. Offshore wind farms cannot be built in the middle of Tokyo. Hydroelectric dams can’t be built in the middle of Kyoto. Wave and tidal power generation doesn’t work on land. Yet nuclear plants can be built close to cities – just not too close. Coal, oil and gas-fuelled plants can also be built close to cities. If you are really lucky, geothermal plants CAN be built in towns or cities although it is more likely that a town or city can be built around said geothermal plant. The only renewable energy source likely to be available in a city is solar power – if the smog and building shadows permit, and that can only supply power for a fraction of the day. The area of a major city with plenty of high rises is unlikely to be enough to support enough solar panels to power the city, so it will still need to import electricity from outside – or use fossil fuels.

    In the future we may see salinity gradient power stations set up where rivers flow into the sea and some of those may be on the edge of cities, but so far only small prototypes have been or are being constructed.

    The other factor is the reliability and the control of the power generation. Fossil fueled plants can generate when the demand is there. Renewable generation can only generate when the energy is there, making wind, wave, tidal and solar photovoltaic intermittent sources. Only hydro and geothermal are major renewable controllable generation, although CSP and biomass are useful. At higher penetrations of intermittent renewables, storage is required and this has its own efficiencies to consider, whether by chemical batteries, pumped hydro, compressed air, liquified air or the gravel battery (reversible thermal pump).

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  177. Trevor29

    Renewables have to be built where the energy is.

    You mean PV has to be built where the sun shines Trevor. Wow! What a revelation! What has that got to do with your claim that it’s “wooly thinking” to have more efficiency through power generation closer to the end user? Integrated PV systems have in some cases been shown to be 75% more efficient.

    It just so happens that most of the recent PV installations are in places that have a lot of sunlight hours. Just to give this some context, the United States Energy Association reported in 2008 that the US had an average capacity factor of 0.19 or 19% for PV. Recent development in PV technology have effectively more than doubled their potential efficiency.

    But the real clincher to the nuclear versus renewables debate is that renewable technology is becoming considerably cheaper per KWh produced in comparison to nuclear. That’s why nuclear is a dying industry, in more ways than one.

    Claiming that solar is only viable for a fraction of the day contradicts the fact that you can store energy. It’s an entirely pathetic argument Trevor… The epitome of “wooly thinking”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  178. Recent PV installations are in places that have a lot of sunlight hours – like deserts. They just don’t have a lot of people. Still 19% capacity factor isn’t too bad, and certainly a bit better than the 14% I quoted, although my figure would have included Europe – not many deserts there.

    And gosh – who would have thought that you can store solar energy? (Hint – see my previous post.) And once you recover the stored energy, you find that you have lost more than it would have cost to transmit the energy half way across the countryside. But heh – solar energy is cheaper than nuclear energy. Pity that the storage system costs so much, eh? Still we can build the pumped storage system in the middle of the city between the PV systems and the users, can’t we? Oh dear, we can’t get planning permission to flood the city! We will just have to use a less efficient storage system that costs more.

    It isn’t the first 10% of renewable generation that is expensive – it is the last 50%. So far, virtually every significant country that is installing solar PV is under that 10% level.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  179. As BJ said, we actually agree on quite a lot. Renewables should be installed as fast as practical. Dangerous nuclear plants should be closed permanently. Investment should continue on improving energy efficiency and the efficiency of various forms of renewable energy, and new forms should be investigated and developed (such as hydrothermal and salinity gradient and OTEC). Energy storage systems should continue to be developed.

    But all this takes time. BJ and I are engineers, used to looking at details, and the devil is in the details. Two basic rules stand out: “TANSTAAFL” and “Good, Cheap and Fast – pick any two”. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. It takes time or money to develop something good (safe, efficient).

    It will take decades to increase our use of renewables up to the 80% and higher levels needed to replace fossil fuels and cut down on CO2 emissions – longer than most people realise. And the U235 won’t last forever. As renewables increase their share, can we afford to cut back our use of nuclear power even further than we have already agreed is necessary – at the expense of burning more of the gas and oil that is rapidly running out, or more of the most CO2-intensive fuel available coal? BJ and I (and others) say that done safely, with intensive independent peer review, nuclear power is less dangerous than climate change, particularly when done by countries that already have long experience with nuclear power. But we are not advocating nuclear power everywhere.

    But there is a bigger risk again – energy wars. When the oil and gas do run down (and that time is approaching rapidly), people will still expect what they are used to or what they perceive others are used to, and may fight if they don’t get what they believe they are entitled to. To put off this time or reduce its severity, we need to conserve what fossil fuels we can, and use other resources including nuclear. Even if we can avoid the energy wars, if there are looming energy shortages, then there may be a mad scramble to harness nuclear power – and that is much more dangerous than carefully designing, building and testing that nuclear power now while we still have time.

    Meanwhile the National government say they support a 90% renewable target but are doing nothing to support it and several of their actions will make it harder to achieve. Consented wind farms and geothermal power stations sit on the drawing boards waiting “more favourable economic conditions” before construction starts, while the gas and coal continues to be burned.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>