$79 million down the drain
March 31st, 2006 at 6:28 am by David FarrarIn 2001 the Government announced a National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy with a $79-million, five-year budget.
Yesterday they announced it has failed. In fact the growth in non-renewable energy use under Labour’s plan had been higher than a 2001 “do-nothing” scenario before the strategy was adopted.
Just think then. If they spent twice as much money, they may have failed twice as badly!!
Also remember there is no money available for tax cuts!
No tag for this post.
March 31st, 2006 at 6:57 am
Yup, Labour’s energy and environmental policies are in general so modest and timis they have been doomed to fail. The Greens have been saying this for years…what’s new? And await with bated breath National’s bold and decisive new policies in this area….last I looked before the election National appeared to have nothing meaningful on it’s website, so I’m keen to know if it is worth checking back to see what has changed.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 7:17 am
Sorting out the RMA would be a start. Take solace at least that the wasted millions didn’t go on sending various wastrels to symposiums on macadamia nuts, or stilt walking courses.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 7:30 am
How would sorting out the RMA have affected renewable energy use?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 7:37 am
Well, it might make it that little bit easier to build the things.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 7:38 am
Promoting efficient use of energy is surely a goal for both political parties. Managing the demand for energy is essential, National’s policies from the 90s were to split up ECNZ, force line and energy companies to separate and compete and hope like hell that supply side reform would result in cheaper and more efficient energy – I wonder how much that’s cost us?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 7:39 am
Why do we stand for it? Why do we keep paying our taxes so that they can be thrown down the drain? Keeps some people off the dole I suppose!
Sustainable energy is a really good thing to head towards – and should be done as quickly as possible.
But what this “Strategy” would have done is a) set up a committee, b) get some reports ordered, c) sit around reading said reports whilst forming a range of sub-committees and deciding which other reports are needed… and then “Oh, the money’s run out?” Well lets shut down this “Strategy” and start a new one. Of course we’ll need some consultants, some reports on how to go about this and yes this is going to be a lot of work so we’d better form a committee…
Geez for $79 million you could probably build a nice little wind powered generation site.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 7:51 am
How do I get a position on one of these Strategies? What skills do you need to have to spend $79 million and achieve less than if you had done nothing? What should I put on my CV?
And after losing say $79 million, do you get a pay rise and a new job managing say $150 million?
It’s a big challenge, but I reckon I could do it.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:33 am
That’s what happens when you need support from the Greens, pie in the sky looney ideas.
Vote:That is why NZ1 & UF supported the Labour govt last election to stop this nonsense. NZ1 & UF have a veto on the loonies Greens & ACT, thank goodness. At least the govt has come clean on the issue.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:35 am
Here’s a strategy:
1. Fix the damn transport problems in our cities. That means roads and an excellent world class public transport system. If that means using private funding for toll roads then so be it. Cars sitting in traffic jams are a major waste of energy. Upgrading the rail network would help.
2. Pass some legislation requiring an effective minimum standard for all new housing & commercial developments in terms of energy efficiency. Lets face it – developers dont care about the environment or future energy bills, so it has to be legislated.
In fact, introduce requirements for landlords to upgrade tennanted properties for energy efficiency as well. Commercial and residential properties. It will also do a world of good for the health of poor people to not live in cold drafty damp old houses (including students).
3. Streamline the RMA for sustainable energy developments – cogeneration, windfarms etc.
4. Upgrade our rickety old power line/ distribution system. Beat transpower over the head if you have to, but get it done. This way more remote windpower projects will become viable for investment. At the moment a major problem isnt the RMA but the dodgy old transmission lines.
Probably a lot more the government should be doing.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:43 am
It gets wors, the plan has failed so miserably that the Govt is behind its targets so they are creating a new strategy that will have even tougher targets ti catch up. They haven’t considered the original targets might have been pie in the sky by the looks of it. Nice people at EECA but not very practical.
“The new strategy will pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy more aggressively and will aim to put New Zealand on a faster course to a sustainable energy system.”
Jeanette now has a big stick to wave at business and that means energy costs will go up more than they need to for you and me too.
When you combine that with the possibility of councils getting control of Kyoto commitments (imagine the nutbar things the ARC and Chch CC could do with that baby) it is getting less likely there will be much in the way of industrial development in NZ in the medium term. Efficiency will be achieved through contraction. The Green Village will arrive soon. Dust off your hemp suits.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 9:41 am
I actually like Tony Blairs comment that we need to make it an incentive for investors to drive the development of energy efficient technology and new technologies for sustainable energy. The govts job is to foster that environment as much as it can. After that its over to us/ the investors to make it happen. But wherever possible the govt needs to make it easier to be green. Not just harder to be dirty. Carrot and stick approach good. stick approach only bad.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 10:11 am
Criticism of the RMA reflects little knowledge of the Act. Read section 7(j) and you will see renewable energy development is a specified priority. Interesting to see in todays NZ Herald that Meridian is consulting with affected parties more this time for “son of aqua”. This was a major shortfall in the previous version where many affected locals were left out of the process, therefore leading to confrontation and failure. Rather than criticise the RMA, criticise its implementation, as that is where the problem lies.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 10:22 am
One problem that needs to be recognised is that “energy efficiency” calculations are usually wildly optimistic, and the actual results of such campaigns is always deeply disappointing to those promoting them. There is in real life a lot less opportunity to save energy than theorectical calculations assume. As part of that, peoples responses to the energy savings are also frequently quite different from the assumed behaviours. So energy efficiency drives on their own will probably never provide much by the way of significant changes to energy use.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 10:24 am
Cadmus said
“That is why NZ1 & UF supported the Labour govt last election to stop this nonsense ….”
Are you seriously expecting us to be stupid enough to swallow the BS that NZ First and UF took part in the coalition for the altruistic reason of saving the population from the Greens. That is not only mind-blowingly stupid but offensive in the extreme.
We do expect a degree of realism from you Cadmus and you even (rarely) produce something that provokes some thought but really this time you have blown any accumulated credibility capital completely.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:20 am
Ed
I heard a story about the UK that demonstrates this. They carried out a major govt funded home insulation programme to reduce energy usage. Unfortunatley the response was that rather than turn the power down people kept it up but just took off their jumpers and slippers. The lesson, people were happy paying power bills to keep warm, the warmer the better.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:36 am
David, YES, From my understanding NZ1 & UF said they would only support common sense govt, they had a Veto if National or Labour formed a govt with the “extreme” looney fringe, Greens or ACT.
If your read my post I said not only saving NZ from the Greens, but also “ACT”
you say…
“That is not only mind-blowingly stupid but offensive in the extreme.”
I don’t think so.. I believe both NZ1 & UF looked at what was on offer and in the best interests of the country went with Labour, if they didn’t the alternative would have been a hung parliament and another election. Or a hash parliament of National Maori & Co that would have fallen over by now.
Yes, I believe NZ1 & UF put the country first.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Typical, 80 million here, 80 million there who gives a fuck ah, not like they have to account for it, how can you throw 80 million dollars at something and not achieve anything. You dickheads of the left think Labour have a clue, well done this result is all yours, basque in it.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Ssshhhhhhh, they’ll give the Basques 80 million. There is no problem big enough you can’t throw money at…
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Cadmus has some credibility? When did that happen? I must have missed those wonderful, insightful posts. Every one I’ve read has been retarded.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Err. maybe its you that’s retarded, as everyone else is able to read them?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Err. maybe its you that’s retarded, as everyone else is able to read them?
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:39 pm
$20m a year does seem like rather a lot of money on the surface: from their site they say exactly what has been achieved in the situation report at http://www.eeca.govt.nz/news/media-releases/replacement-neecs.html
The main one seems to be the “saving of 11PJ (1.6%) of primary energy requirements from 2001 to 2004″ which they go on to explain was pretty much the trend anyway. The other main achievements seem to be in policy and research areas, and identifying solutions for NZ that have worked overseas.
Unsuprisingly, it is more wind power, solar hot water heating & home insulation, some biofuels, and decent public transport, and other reasonably locical ideas.
While it is certainly good to have hard data to draw upon, and policy and programs to follow for different areas of the economy, is it just common sense?
The major irony is in the end of their report however: they say that the most successful governments are those who set definite targets and take action, presumably not those who dither around compiling endless reports.
However, at least people are talking about it, so I guess public awareness has been raised…
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Heres my energy conservation idea to save $15 per month.
Only turn on your hot water for one hour per day!
My last months power bill was $36. Even lower than last Feb _ I have more energy saving bulbs that they are only $4-$6 each- but they put the price up halfway through the month.
This works because of two things. I dont need extra hot water since the dishwasher and washing machine heat their own water, the shower is set to give mostly hot with very little mixing. And since the one hour ‘heats’ only half the cylinder I still have it hot enough since hot water rises to the top anyway, and cold water will stay on the bottom , with the two not mixing ONLY IF THE ELEMENT DOESNT TURN ON.
Remembering to turn it on and off is a big disadvantage , trying to find a timer that will work with a 3KW heater not easy as most domestic timers only go up to 2.4kW- which is 10A.
Vote:March 31st, 2006 at 11:47 pm
The absence of timers on New Zealand hot water boilers has always baffled me. In the UK every house I lived in had a nice, easy to understand timer on the boiler. When you’re out during the day you just set your boiler to turn itself off.
Bizarre.
My question would be… how many dwellings are there in New Zealand? How much would it cost to fit a timer to each of them? Would it be less than $80m?
Vote:April 1st, 2006 at 1:46 am
Yes, fitting timers onto the thermostats would rack up the savings on power bills quite quickly as that is where the majority of your power bill goes. I also wonder how much it would cost to subsidize solar-powered water-heaters in new dwellings? Less than the 80 large as well??
The other thing that has been cropping up over in the UK (and Western Europe) is the emergence of the self-sufficient apartment block. It produces and manages its own electricity via wind/solar power, to name one advantage. What a waste of taxpayers money if they can’t even find out and implement useful information thats being posted here, I do not know…
=)
Vote:April 1st, 2006 at 9:21 am
The EECA and the energy strategy failed ,simply because the solutions were small scale.outmoded technologically and the fragmented structure of the interdepartment complex.IE to many departments doing the same reports.The wastage is far above what has been quoted.
MAVXP introduces some logical thinking,although the solutions are not properly thought out.
Basically NZ needs additional energy over the next 10 years of 10 gwh to enhace growth,bring the internal cost structure of energy costs down to enable investment and prepare for new technology.
It does not matter what side you are on in the debate both primary parties in NZ signed NZ to the Kyoto protocol.Whilst the KP is now of a finite lifespan,it will not proceed past 2012! and the beaureuacratic inertia developed by the EU has produced not one singularly measureable outcome.IT is now time to look for solutions of which technology is the only vehicle that is now deliverable!
There are major changes at present globally for the ENTIRE world energy complex and its interconnection with the environment,economic stability,and growth.
The structures have already been identified,and signals have been sent from the 6 country agreement members,the G8,and From Blair who was here.The white noise of rhectoric from commentators seems that they have not correctly identified those signals.
I blogged on the 13 th march of what Blair would say on his visit here ,as this is part of the global initiative.The media here failed to identify those signals and hints although overseas media immediatley grasped it!
The message is the same as what Victor Khristenko said at the G8 energy meeting.This is what the rest of the world is going to do.
“In the first quarter of the 21st century, mankind has to make a scientific and technological breakthrough towards pure” non-traditional and renewable energy sources, as well as towards greater and more rational use of nuclear and hydropower.
We urge science and business to unite their efforts to launch research and development necessary to create new technologies, to improve confidence in them and expand the opportunities for selecting adequate technologies. We call on state officials to take joint efforts to eliminated groundless legal, customs and other barriers that stand in the way of spreading and introducing state-of-the-art, energy efficient and environmentally safe technology and equipment, as well as to help to increase their economic competitiveness.
Investment incentives include good legislation, clear tax rules, respect for contracts, reliable dispute settlement procedures, and measures to reduce red tape,” he said.
The greens FIRST RESPONSE is to immediately introduce more red tape.They also refuse to allow development of the 17 gwh of the small to medium hydro resource.The constraints they introduce have cost 1500 manufacturing jobs so far this year ,and the loss of 29 miilion dollars a month in exports.
Vote: