National’s Energy Policy

August 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Now letThree documents on this. The speech by John Key, the press release by Gerry Brownlee and the 11 page policy document. Key aspects:

  • Plan for realistic levels of future demand growth, because running out of electricity is a risk we are not prepared to take (Labour is saying growth will be only 1.2% despite historial average of 2.2%)
  • Introduce priority consenting for some large projects
  • Reverse the ban on new base-load thermal power stations
  • Consider abolishing the Electricity Commission (has been mega expensive)
  • Introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme within nine months of taking office
  • Support a target of 90% renewables for new energy projects, but not at the expense of security of supply
  • Expect no new coal stations unless technologies emerge for carbon capture and storage
  • Introduce a $1,000 per household solar water heating grant and simply consent rules for solar power
  • Invest $25m in seismic exploration over next three years to tap the potential 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent we have

Now let’s look at thermal generation in more detail. 75% of new generation under Labour has been thermal. To pretend you can go from 75% to 0% overnight is nuts. Even Labour sort of know this, and have left wriggle room – their ban is more of a slogan.

The Dom Post reports a leading energy lawyer saying the ban probably would have to abandoned by Labour after the election.

I think everyone agrees the long-term future is renewables, but it will take a while to get there. And the consenting process for hydro takes so long a ban on thermal will see shortages. Just look at this ODT story about David Parker saying no to any more hydro dams on the Clutha. I love wind power but wind alone is not a secure supply. We need more hydro, and until we get that hydro we will need more thermal.

Tags: ,

62 Responses to “National’s Energy Policy”

  1. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “Introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme within nine months of taking office”

    Well John Boy, you have just lost my two votes, its gutless and a sop to the tree huggers who push the climate change con.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Owen McShane (1,182 comments) says:

    I for one do not agree that the long term future is in renewables if only because the only reliable renewable is geothermal – and that is nuclear anyhow.

    The long term future will be a mix of renewables and nuclear because geothermal is limited for all manner of reasons.
    And long before we have to deal with real scarcity of fossil fuels (which includes coal after all) and uranium we shall have cracked the fusion process and will have infinite energy.

    But in the meantime fission gets cheaper by the day and we have ready access to Australia’s cheap uranium.
    So count me out on the renewables fad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Owen McShane (1,182 comments) says:

    And the ETC has a life expectancy of about six months.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. getstaffed (8,040 comments) says:

    Consider abolishing the Electricity Commission (has been mega expensive)
    Great start. Keep going – there’s lots more like this …

    Introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme within nine months of taking office
    Great mistake…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gd (1,780 comments) says:

    NO NO NO to ETS This is just another tax by another name and an opportunity for JKs old mates Mark W at the NZX to clip the ticket and add cost for no value in return.

    And a chance for the Socilaists to point out what Ive just done and loss the Nats votes.

    the punters dont want an ETS I repeat The punters dont want an ETS They are smart enough to see it for the smoke and mirrors trick it is.

    Get some BALLS Nats and bring on NUKE POWER Forget the 19th and 20th Century where the Socialists and the Greens still live

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. getstaffed (8,040 comments) says:

    Owen / gd – If you have tired of the “Nuclear is too ‘big’ for NZ” spin, then check out Toshiba’s Micro Nuclear Reactor

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    An emission trading scheme…. So like Labour, National plan to burn tax payers money to produce electricity….

    Why oh why has the national party become a “me too” party ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Grant (286 comments) says:

    This country needs an ETS like it needs another labour government.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. pushmepullu (686 comments) says:

    If the lobbyists line up at Brownlee’s door he will slam it shut in their faces! The National Party is not in power to distribute money to its mates (unlike Labour) it is there to work for the good of all New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    You missed a bit
    Stay in Kyoto and send billions of dollars to Russia to fund invasions of their neighbouring countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Hopefully the ETS is the only election promise that national will break.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Captain Crab (336 comments) says:

    I hope National bins the ETS as part of the deal with the Maori Party

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    I wonder where the hell the NZPA got:

    NZ needs oil-burning power stations – Key

    When it doesn’t appear he has said anything of the sort.

    “Latest figures suggest that 1520MW of new generation will be commissioned over the next four years more than twice what is required to meet the increase in demand and most of which will be renewables.”

    – Greenpeace chick

    http://stuff.co.nz/4655855a6160.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. getstaffed (8,040 comments) says:

    insider – hah! I discovered that after posting. Should have read a little more widely after the initial google eh?. It will be interesting to see if smaller scale nuclear facilities do start to appear in the next few years. Like many other technologies design, cost and quality improve as something moves from niche to more mass market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Absolutely agree Owen McShane, about renewable’s, its all part of the great world wide dupe of Al Gores inconvienent falsehood!!

    and what about this point!!

    Expect no new coal stations unless technologies emerge for carbon capture and storage

    Come on you lot whats so wrong with coal we have vast resources of Lignite waiting to be used, its cheap, it can be burnt very very efficiently, it does not require think big hydros it can be both base load and demand load and it will bring down the cost of electricity significantly.

    Whats the point of poring money into oil exploration when we already have the coal on a plate!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    Disappointing for me there is no mention of stimulatory investment in R&D.

    If they’re prepared to spend $25m on exploration that the private sector was going to be doing anyway, what’s the issue with stimulating a bit of science in the energy areas?

    Technology developments in energy are obviously valued extremely highly by all nations and since most infrastructure is centrally funded there are an unlimited number of deep-pocket customers. Energy technology involves areas of science and engineering that aren’t particularly well developed in NZ since we have always focused on the biological. It would improve our education and our export sectors and provide another reason for some of our more intelligent graduates to stick around.

    Re: the nuclear, as many have mentioned previously, pebble-bed reactors are the way to go if we decide to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    Wind + hydro batteries + geothermal + = c’mon!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chris S (110 comments) says:

    Grant – my feelings exactly… lots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Hang on a minute chaps……

    Any coalition agreement that National puts together after the election will more than likely involve the ACT party as well as (hopefully) the Maori party (I like the idea of Pita Sharples as minister of Maori affairs)

    Now unless I am mistaken the ACT party are dead against the ETS, I suppose if doing away with an ETS is the price he has to pay for ACT’s support then I guess Key has no option.

    BRILLIANT, the ultimate win/win scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. georgedarroch (303 comments) says:

    What a bunch of idiotic ideologues. Abolishing EECA? Seriously? WTF?

    We waste huge amounts of energy every year. EECA has saved business and people millions and millions that would otherwise have been spent on electricity and other energy use. And that’s despite having only a limited mandate. Wake me up when we have sane energy and climate policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. georgedarroch (303 comments) says:

    Whoops, they don’t want to abolish EECA, just take away its (already limited) power to do anything. Cause, y’know, John Key cares about that kind of thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    getstaffed said: check out Toshiba’s Micro Nuclear Reactor

    O dear, getstaffed. Did you really get sucked in by that? You should go and have a chat with Jacqui Dean about the dangers of di-hydrogen monoxide sometime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    I’m with Polemic, we have the coal and should be able to use it. It makes no sense selling it to China and claiming it’s not polluting while we tip good money down the toilet paying the russians money for cow farts, what fucking madness. The only problem with coal is like everything else, milk, meat, cheese, oil etc the general public will end up paying international prices for something in our backyard and the cost will only go up.

    I bet the fucking Melons are having kittens over this. And JK is doing a good impression of the village idiot with his love afair with an ETS scheme, he needs a rocket up his arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PhilBest (4,757 comments) says:

    Why would any politician be so lacking in balls as to NOT promise fast-tracking of hydro NOW? Stuff Parker and Co and their valuation of snails over humans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    side show bob said: I bet the fucking Melons are having kittens over this. And JK is doing a good impression of the village idiot with his love afair with an ETS scheme, he needs a rocket up his arse.

    Meooww!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. polemic (460 comments) says:

    big bruv (1330)
    August 14th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
    Hang on a minute chaps……

    Now unless I am mistaken the ACT party are dead against the ETS, I suppose if doing away with an ETS is the price he has to pay for ACT’s support then I guess Key has no option.

    BRILLIANT, the ultimate win/win scenario.

    I agree its a brilliant win/win and its high time we received some bargaining power from MMP via ACT to make up for all the rubbish that has been foisted on us from the Greens and NZF etc.

    Also Pita Sharples could bring some nobility back to Maoridom with being Minister of maori Affairs inside cabinet not that deadhead outside cabinet Labour jack up with Winnie!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. frog (77 comments) says:

    So when National makes these four key points:

    – Acknowledging the extent of future demand
    – Reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA)
    – Accepting that gas will be part of the mix
    – Streamlining investment and decision making processes

    I worry they really mean, reading between the lines:

    – promote increased energy consumption (euphemism = growth)
    – hamstring one of our most important legislative environmental protections
    – burn more fossil fuels
    – remove restrictions on private companies that want to burn more fuels and build more power stations

    As Jeanette Fitzsimons says:

    “The policy has no security of supply where fossil fuels are concerned. It’s a false promise. The cost of all fossil fuels are going through the roof all over the world and the National Party wants us to commit to another 30 years of it, when in fact renewable energy options are cheaper. New geothermal and wind power stations are being built right now. Just as bad generals always plan for the last war, the Nats are planning to solve the problems of the past.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Well said frog! Good to see you here. I also note that there is scant mention of coal in the Nats’ backgrounder. I wonder just what it is that Gerry has in his Christmas stocking for us.

    Is burning more coal a “deferred policy option” like selling Kiwibank?

    “Well, not now, but, just between you and me, eventually (pssst, there’s an election coming up, just keep your gob shut for a while will you)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. pushmepullu (686 comments) says:

    Frog, shut your face. Nobody wants to hear your socialist lies.

    What’s with all the Pita Sharples love guys? The guy is just another socialist academic off the treadmil that churns them out at Auckland Uni. Restoring dignity to Maoridom? The dignity Maoridom needs is a sense of pride in doing a hard day’s work for an honest day’s pay and no public-tit-sucking academic like Sharples has any idea about anything of the sort.

    I suggest he goes and shacks up in Tuhoe with his mate Tame Iti and their little separatist republic see just how he does there.

    [DPF: Getting close to demerits. Rebut what Frog says, don’t tell him/her to shut theri face]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    frog

    It’s quite possible National are planning for growth in the economy. If Labour have been planning for greater growth then they have failed, if they have not been – then why not? Basing demand projections on a period of relatively low and stagnating growth is just head in the sand stuff.

    If Labour/Greens/NZ1/Jolly Jim front up in the election and say ‘we want the economy to stagnate’ then fine. Let the voters choose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    There are limits to how much you can “simplify” the consent process for solar water heaters.

    Often these things have >=500kg cylinder/collector units on the roof, and you cannot just prop up that sort of weight on a conventionally-framed truss or rafter roof without getting an engineer’s report (which BTW will make a big dent in your $1000 grant!)

    Oh and I love “policies” like:
    “Support a target of 90% renewables for new energy projects, but not at the expense of security of supply.”
    which mean next to nothing in real terms. Either you are going for 90% renewables, or you aren’t.

    I struggle to get excited about “We have THIS vision for the future of New Zealand. Umm, well unless something comes up that changes our minds. Yeah! That’s it. Vote for me…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    National should pull the pin on the whole fricken no nukes hand grenade and lob it into the debate. It might be suicide but it will take the countries collective head out of it’s collective ass and make people look at the issue.

    Do we want lots of windmills, batteries for Africa with their high environmental impact production and disposal? Do we really want to build more dams on our rivers? Can we ever get projects like this started, transmission gully suggests big projects are in the too hard pile for NZ? Do we want solar units and all the associated maintenance issues?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    burt – Key’s track record of only speaking up on “safe” issues would suggest that he’s unlikely to go pro-nuclear this side of the election. His campaigning style is more damp squib than nuclear hand grenade… :-D

    And I would suggest that a nuclear power plant would not be a small, cheap construction project for the “easy” pile, even when compared to a dam!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    A nuclear power plant is completely unviable economically in New Zealand. The capital cost of bulding it means it would generate electricity that is far more expensive than any of the other options we have at our disposal. And we have plenty of other options.

    But some Nat supporters just can’t seem to let go of the idea. Nuclear power was actually the issue that first inspired me to be politically involved. Back when I was a 14 year old schoolkid, Bill Birch, who was then first-term backbencher and my local MP, proposed building a nuclear power plant at Waiau Pa on the Manukau Harbour.

    Living only a few km (or miles, as we measured distance then) away, I was less than happy with the proposal. So I guess I can thank Bill Birch for my political enlightenment. I grew up in a staunch National Party supporting farming family. Bill Birch is the guy who “inspired” me, through his stupidity over nuclear power, to look towards other perspectives in politics, and, eventually, to joining the Green Party.

    BTW, what did the Government eventually pay Fletchers to take away Birch’s Motunui synfuel plant as part of the Maui deal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    Toad

    If we project power consumption based on an economy slumping into a recession then any electricity generation infrastructure development can be made to sound like folly.

    Get ya head out of your ass. This is not about Labour & National, it’s about how much electricity we need in NZ IF we have a govt that gets the economy growing, thus dramatically increasing demand, rather than driving it into a recession.

    The countries love affair with replacing open fires with heat pumps is probably enough growth in consumption to sink the current govt’s projections into blackouts.

    We have had the wettest July on record, our continued hydro supply has been saved by good luck. Plan on good luck every year if you are a Muppet, otherwise get your head out of your ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    burt – I agree it is not about Labour and National. Neither of those parties is promoting any sustainable solution, given their reliance on fossil fuels for our future energy needs. In case you haven’t notices, fosil fuels ware a finite resource, and the more we use up, the more expensive they, and the electricity generated from them, will become.

    The Greens are the only party lookng to renewable energy resources as our future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    We have had the wettest July on record, our continued hydro supply has been saved by good luck. Plan on good luck every year if you are a Muppet, otherwise get your head out of your ass.

    But in a normal year, all the July rain is more evenly distributed. It wasn’t luck, thats why they built dams – to catch rain when it falls, then store it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    Stephen – “I wonder where the hell the NZPA got:”

    ‘NZ needs oil-burning power stations – Key ‘

    I see that twit Duncan Garner also said exactly the same thing on 3 news… maybe he is the one peddling this shit… he must be on Helen Clark’s payroll.

    I would like to see him (and a few others in our media) give a disclosure at the end of their spiels – something along the lines of “I voted for the pinko’s last time and the all the times before and will be voting for them again”. Whenever someone reports on financials they must… the economy is no different.

    Anyway, back to topic…. I would like Key to propose a referendum on Nuclear Power, I reckon we would go close to a 50% majority, then we can just railroad through a new 2GW N-Power station… kind of like Clark/Bradford pushed their smacking bill through.

    Toad – get educated before you argue whether N-Power is unviable in NZ! Yes, they are capital intensive: ~3 x the price of a similar sized coal plant, yet building them on a bigger scale becomes much more economical, hence my suggestion to build a 2GW plant. We could then shut down Huntly @ 1.2GW, reduce load on our Hydro and have contingency! Wow wouldn’t that be nice… And how the fuck do you propose to SUSTAINABLY power NZ with renewables? Don’t tell me wind or tidal….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    Stephen

    Yes in a normal year the rain is more evenly spread. Yes that is why we have dams. Now back to the increasing demand factor in the equation. Are you saying that the existing hydro capacity is sufficient or do you think that we are more likely to be draining the lakes lower and lower as we increase demand and thus unless rainfall increases (more evenly during the year) the lakes will hold insufficient capacity for future demand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    Polemic –

    “Whats the point of poring money into oil exploration when we already have the coal on a plate!!!”

    Pouring money into oil exploration is the best part of this policy, and besides it is hardly “pouring money” @ only 25MM.

    We need some serious exploration, to sure up some of these “supposed” elephant fields in the GSB and deep-water Taranaki, this will then encourage the super-majors here, who will spend money like you have never seen. And, if we do discover a real elephant, think of the royaltie$.

    I’m not a fan of SOE’s, but I wouldn’t mind NZ having a NOC – look at StatOil, Petronas, PetroBras for an example….
    (Just don’t mind the corruption in PetroBras!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    Toad

    “The Greens are the only party lookng to renewable energy resources as our future.”

    Well if the Green’s have sold out to Labour’s pitiful growth projections based on the last decade of reducing growth leading into a recession then one of two things must be true. Either the Green’s have a very low growth agenda, preferring to slip in and out of recession and growth like an overdraft should be managed OR they are just poodles to Labour party policy.

    Consumer demand for electricity is increasing, if the economy grows at the same time as KW/Person demand grows then increases in consumption can become exponential over time. A flat ‘easy to calculate’ projection based on a decade of slowing growth into a recession is not sensible. Insufficient capacity causes high prices which also strangles growth, this isn’t rocket science.

    So, are the Green’s wanting a stagnant economy or are they poodles?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    mattyroo

    It seems likely there are oil reserves to be had, it’s incredibly sensible that the govt fund the exploration and extraction. I find it interesting that socialists have no problem claiming airports and railways but not oil exploration. Perhaps it’s the risk thing, they have no experience in dealing with risk, their only answer is to increase taxes to pay for everything from current tax revenue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,760 comments) says:

    An Emissions Trading Scheme is a stupid idea and a waste of money. National seem really keen to boost ACT’s party vote. Keep up the good work National. Roger Douglas as Finance Minister before Christmas is exactly what the country needs for a bright economic future. National has no answers to the current deep recession hitting New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    N-power. I feel like I had this discussion with Toad already on another thread (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/08/nationals_infrastructure_forum.html#comment-470480). The argument is that we need 2, and they are too big. The reality is that we don’t need two – a plant typically has multiple reactors and turbines in it, and you shut them down one at a time for maintenance. The units come at around 600MW each, NZ has about 8GW of generation capacity. Another 1.2GW would be easy to justify (two units)

    If we are serious about reducing oil dependency, one real option is hydrogen (burns in an internal combustion engine, main question is how to get the hydrogen). Nuclear and hydrogen go well together – when the plant isn’t servicing peak demand, you just electrolyse water into hydrogen. If we got serious about this, then we could go out to 4 or 6 of them. It is a myth that we could not sustain a nuclear power plant, it is also a myth that it is way more expensive than renewable alternatives. It is, however, way more expensive than fossil fuel thermal at current prices. If we had a carbon tax or ETS, however, it would suddenly be economic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    OECD rank 22 kiwi

    Accountability in govt… You would think it would be very popular wouldn’t you? WTF is the polling doing at sub 5% – go figure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    PaulL

    “It is, however, way more expensive than fossil fuel thermal at current prices. If we had a carbon tax or ETS, however, it would suddenly be economic.”

    Is that a leap straight to the end game of introducing an ETS?

    You are on the money with the hydrogen. How can we have too much electricity? Imagine it’s being given away… wow that’s a problem…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    burt: no, just reflecting that expensive is a relative statement. Nuclear isn’t more expensive than most renewables. We’d all have it already if coal and oil were more expensive. Oil looks to be getting more expensive all on its own (although I personally think it will drop again when third world countries stop subsidising it, as they inevitably will have to do). Coal is getting more expensive, but not quite as fast. In short, Nuclear is getting less expensive quite rapidly, as compared to the alternatives.

    I don’t personally see an ETS as an end-game. I think it is a mistake. If we’re going to do something, I’d rather a carbon tax. Having said that, funnily enough it looks to me like the market is sorting it out on its own. By the time we get around to doing something the prices will have taken care of themselves. Oil consumption is falling in all western countries, and rising only in those countries that subsidise the cost (i.e. “protect” their citizens from the market). The reality is that, at present, government intervention is driving consumption, not the market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. reid (16,681 comments) says:

    PaulL, did you and toad discuss pebble-bed reactors? I understand they start around 100 MW and that’s not too big for the grid. They are also modular, so can be expanded as required. At around $200m USD they are affordable as well.

    What’s stopping the debate here is irrational witch-huntery arising from the public’s pavlovian emotional response which is deliberately and carefully designed, generated and maintained by hysterical scaremongering from those with vested interests in keeping NZ nuclear-free whether or not it actually makes logical sense.

    It’s rather ironic that it’s taken a bigger bogeyman in the form of AGW to prompt some of those Luddite zealots to reconsider their nuclear position. You’ll never convince the truly insane, since their minds are set in concrete, however AGW might yet bring NZ into the nuclear age and hooray for that and about freakin time too.

    I might add that I’d really prefer we leap straight into scalar electromagnetics (which some refer to as zero-point energy), but one step at a time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. PaulL (5,446 comments) says:

    I’ve always been a fan of pebble bed. No commercial installations yet though. I strongly believe they are going to be useful in the future. Have you looked at the thorium cycle as well? Fewer long-lived radioactive by products, more fuel available, greater fuel burn rate, no proliferation concerns. I wonder whether we could do thorium pebble bed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. insider (845 comments) says:

    On nukes, we also don’t have the engineering and maintenance expertise. That would be a major barrier to any form of development and very costly to overcome. We just don’t have the commercial or population scale. We would be better focussiing on the current suite of technologies.

    Mattyroo/burt

    Why the hell would you risk taxpayer money building a domestic oil company when Exxon will come in and do the work for free and you can clip the ticket with zero risk. It will cost billions to develop any decent offshore find. Likely hundreds of millions just to find something. It’s unlikely we would be able to compete technologically or commercially for similar reasons as above if anything was found. Leave the hard work to the experts. Shit we can’t even run a decent railway…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    burt, good points. Yeah, i was making the point that rainfall was not lucky, and that most of the time a crisis is never really on the radar, although these seem to be happening a bit more these days (thanks for nothing mother nature, but not helped by the New Plymouth station being shut and the Cook Strait cable going offline). There is a LOT of power coming online in the next few years (below), so I don’t really know how to blame Labour for much here.

    An interesting document for the alarmists and the apathetic alike (ignore the website if you want):
    http://www.stoprodneypowerstation.org/documents/Planned_Generation_Projects.pdf

    Consents granted to:

    Hydro: 17, 16 = 33MW
    Geothermal 220 (‘called in’), 23, 90, 132, 15 = 480MW
    Gas: 200
    Wind: 225, 30, 46, 1.8, 240, 102 (‘called in’), 48, 20, 84 = 796MW!

    Total 1509MW consented or called in, which I think is just as good (?). There are a lot more ‘under appeal’ etc..

    1300+MW are planned, according to Transpower…
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/transpower-chief-new-projects-will-outpace-electricity-demand-33153

    With only(?) 150MW to 200MW of new generation a year required, how can National improve this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    Run the hydro when the wind isn’t blowing (we can forecast wind, apparently), and more geothermal for baseline…not too bad?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,760 comments) says:

    The ETS is still a waste of time and should be scrapped not tinkered with. At least ACT wouldn’t cripple the economy for a sound bite, unlike National. I hope John Key in particular doesn’t believe this green nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Owen McShane (1,182 comments) says:

    I have installed solar water heaters on seven houses and have not needed an engineer’s report.
    There is a simple technique called load spreading. The installers understand it and is part of the regular building approval.
    The only places you have to pay so much are in those Councils who use their ecomania to fund their staff and grab as many fees as they can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    Acutally OECD ACT has said a few times that they would use a carbon tax instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bluethunder (2 comments) says:

    Haven’t read the full policy statement yet but am mystified by the “Introduce a $1,000 per household solar water heating grant …” proposal.

    EECA already did this as at 1 July this year – it was announced by Jeanette Fitzsimons earlier in the year. Admittedly that’s a restricted grant scheme only available for “packaged and tested” systems that are assessed as being cost-effective if installed below a specified threshold price (with the price based on a cost-benefit calculation derived from the energy-savings assessed out of the system testing);

    Is JK proposing something different or did he miss that this is already current practise?

    [DPF: The Greens stole the policy from National in this case. It was announced over a year ago, and just included in the overall energy policy this week]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t say they stole the policy – the Greens firstly just had a less generous policy ($500), then National offered a bigger subsidy on the Greens’ policy, which the Greens then matched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. PhilBest (4,757 comments) says:

    burt, reid, PaulL, insider, OECD, etc; all good sound argument. Why is this all so unclear to the MSM?

    Presume this debate has moved to the newer thread now. But I must comment on the folly of the Greens “Renewables” policy. It is all very well for Toad to talk about the Nats policy fighting yesterday’s battles, but the Greens want to bring back the “day before yesterday’s” battles: lack of economic growth, and an unhealthy, poverty-stricken subsistence economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. PhilBest (4,757 comments) says:

    By the way, “Renewable and Nuclear Heresies” by Jesse Ausubel, is a “must-read” on this subject.

    http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Dock (43 comments) says:

    Again talk about the extreme views of the right here not seeing exactly what is going on for John Key.

    He is playing to the middle voter. The one who likes to think they care for the environment and the sound of the ETS appeals to their sense of being Green.

    John Key is a pragmatist who knows that the majority of the right will still vote for him if he says he will intro it, but he is also hoping international affairs or conditions change enough for him to pull out of it. He knows long term it is a loser.

    Every day that the Earth doesn’t warm up (which it isn’t-it’s actually getting slightly colder) and the ice tonnage increases in the antartic region to make up for the arctic, he knows the credibility of the doomsayers will fall over. The Greens are pooing themselves the longer away the day comes when the sky falls in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    antarctica is what now? http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote