Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | ... | 268

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#1995145 13-Apr-2018 08:19

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

if battery tech is improved the use of individual generation can be wider

Of course it can. He is just being petty. Better batteries, or battery equivalents, might make it feasible to heat homes from energy stored in the daytime.

While I am hopeful for a battery that can drive a smartphone for a week or a car that can run for 600km on a charge without the battery dying after three years, but there's been dozens of "5x battery density" announcements over the last five years which have resulted in zero commercial products and almost all battery life gains have been the results of BMS or silicon efficiency gains.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1995157 13-Apr-2018 08:56

GV27:

While I am hopeful for a battery that can drive a smartphone for a week or a car that can run for 600km on a charge without the battery dying after three years, but there's been dozens of "5x battery density" announcements over the last five years which have resulted in zero commercial products and almost all battery life gains have been the results of BMS or silicon efficiency gains.

And this implementation of policy does nothing to help promote such advances either. Perhaps we'll learn more about her plans (although I'm not convinced one has been formulated yet) once JA fronts up in May.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1995192 13-Apr-2018 09:17

Aredwood:

Unfortunately wind generation is really variable and can't be used to provide reserves capacity. Meaning if you have too much wind generation, the power grid becomes unstable. So much so, that wind generation is actually defined as negative demand instead of generation in the Wholesale electricity market. I still think we should build more wind generation. But limit it to say 10% of total generation capacity.

Lake fed Hydro and geothermal generation are by far the best types of renewable generation. As geothermal can run all year round, and in any weather conditions. While Lake fed hydro can have its output quickly varied to match demand. As well as provide reserve capacity. And also provide black start capability (re livening the grid if a complete blackout happens). So LF Hydro and Geothermal together are the best option For getting rid of fossil fuel generation.

Ironically more coal fired generation can actually be used to reduce carbon emissions. How? By using it solely as dry year reserve. Case in point, previous winter, the hydro lakes started to run low. The hydro generation owners reduced output to save water for possible later use that winter. As a result, the shortfall had to be provided by extra fossil fuel generation. However later that winter, it started raining again, and the lakes returned to normal. Therefore the extra fossil fuel generation and it's carbon emissions were not needed.

But if there was lots of spare fossil fuel generation capacity available, The hydro generation owners could then run as much water and generate as much power as they like. Knowing that they can happily run the lakes dry. And there will be spare generation capacity available if it doesn't start raining again.

We would probably need around 2000MW of coal generation capacity, and at least 2 million tonnes of coal stockpiled next to the station. But that station would only need to be started on average once every 10 years. And the extra renewable generation it will enable, will far offset its emissions when it does get used. As NZ could then have 100% renewable generation, 9 years out of 10. And far better long term security of supply.

This would also provide insurance against a major natural disaster destroying a large power station or the cook straight cable. And provide extra flood control benefits. As the hydro lakes can have their outflows turned off during major rainfall events.

Good post

I am not opposed to hydro as such, I feel care needs to taken and we certainly don't want all our eggs in one basket, however, as climate change bites hydro is going to become more of a problem child as wet and dry periods become more extreme and more prevalent. Also the locations for new hydro projects are becoming less as our population grows, useable land diminishes with ocean level rise and more is learnt of our geological make up. And I agree wind generation has its own plus and minus but I do feel it is one of the leading solutions for NZ . We need to look at sustainable, clean power generation and we need to look beyond the big projects. We need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels and do not consider nuclear at all.

Instead of putting our energy money into oil exploration we should be funding initiatives into alternatives that are sustainable, viable and green.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1995221 13-Apr-2018 09:44

MikeB4:

Instead of putting our energy money into oil exploration we should be funding initiatives into alternatives that are sustainable, viable and green.

The oil & gas companies pay the government for the rights to explore those areas for hydrocarbons, so there's very little actually spent by the taxpayer (mostly administration of the block offer). Funding initiatives into green energy will be met by the taxpayer, will ever decreasing revenue streams from O&G royalties, as well as very limited ability of the taxpayer to assist directly as funds are diverted elsewhere.

Labour urgently need to articulate their plan to all the stakeholders involved.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1995230 13-Apr-2018 09:54

networkn:
MikeB4:

I am happy to see the end of oil exploration especially offshore exploration. Some of the locations the previous government was OK with was just plain silly eg Tasman/Golden Bay.

Well, National has already said it will reverse this decision. I would prefer them to be quite selective as to where it might be allowed. Golden Bay and Tasman don't seem ideal choices in some ways.

We have the RMA and EPA for a reason. If the environmental impact is too severe the project gets blocked. It was a struggle to get the iron-sand project through on the south taranaki coast , one of the less hospitable coastlines in NZ, so I think golden bay will be safe

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1995240 13-Apr-2018 10:07

MikeB4:
Good post

I am not opposed to hydro as such, I feel care needs to taken and we certainly don't want all our eggs in one basket, however, as climate change bites hydro is going to become more of a problem child as wet and dry periods become more extreme and more prevalent. Also the locations for new hydro projects are becoming less as our population grows, useable land diminishes with ocean level rise and more is learnt of our geological make up. And I agree wind generation has its own plus and minus but I do feel it is one of the leading solutions for NZ . We need to look at sustainable, clean power generation and we need to look beyond the big projects. We need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels and do not consider nuclear at all.

Instead of putting our energy money into oil exploration we should be funding initiatives into alternatives that are sustainable, viable and green.

From.my understanding wind generation is not necessarily very economically viable.

You say "do not consider nuclear" - but that's well acknowledged to be as 'green' as anything. I think nuclear would be less economically viable for NZ as there is huge investment, but are you against it because it messes with NZ's anti-nuclear stance? is this debate about the environment or about ideology.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1995242 13-Apr-2018 10:09

What do we do when wind generation has to be turned off because it is too windy? Also, offshore wind farms have very high maintenance costs compared to onshore ones. For example

"The specific technology required for offshore use remains expensive. While it could change going forward, this is one of the main reasons it’s hard to justify offshore development over onshore. Offshore farms are about 90 percent more expensive than fossil fuel generators.

Offshore turbines suffer greater damage from wind and waves, thereby incurring greater maintenance and operational costs. Furthermore, it takes longer for engineers to reach repair sites to get them running again." (Conservationfolks.com)

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1995261 13-Apr-2018 10:32

Tiwai Smelter is due to quit NZ within the next 10 years leaving all of Manapouri's power available to the grid. Despite this the governments announcement is really a policy failure as its out of the blue, not researched and comes without precedence.

NZ will need to rely on fossil fuels for at least 30 odd years until technology is advanced enough. What the Government is doing will have zero effect of the carbon emissions or the environment and just make us more reliant on more expensive importation of fuel.

It is so dumb!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1995355 13-Apr-2018 11:25

Pumpedd:

Tiwai Smelter is due to quit NZ within the next 10 years leaving all of Manapouri's power available to the grid. Despite this the governments announcement is really a policy failure as its out of the blue, not researched and comes without precedence.

NZ will need to rely on fossil fuels for at least 30 odd years until technology is advanced enough. What the Government is doing will have zero effect of the carbon emissions or the environment and just make us more reliant on more expensive importation of fuel.

It is so dumb!

Not for power generation. Genesis announced sometime ago the closure of the Huntly plants. What is dumb is continuing to pursue oil exploration when the future clearly lays elsewhere. Any oil we were to find would be exported as raw crude and imported back as value added products saving us little. If we remove the reliance

on fossil fuel we can achieve greater fiscal gain and greater environmental gain in the long term.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1995362 13-Apr-2018 11:36

MikeB4:
Pumpedd:

Tiwai Smelter is due to quit NZ within the next 10 years leaving all of Manapouri's power available to the grid. Despite this the governments announcement is really a policy failure as its out of the blue, not researched and comes without precedence.

NZ will need to rely on fossil fuels for at least 30 odd years until technology is advanced enough. What the Government is doing will have zero effect of the carbon emissions or the environment and just make us more reliant on more expensive importation of fuel.

It is so dumb!

Not for power generation. Genesis announced sometime ago the closure of the Huntly plants. What is dumb is continuing to pursue oil exploration when the future clearly lays elsewhere. Any oil we were to find would be exported as raw crude and imported back as value added products saving us little. If we remove the reliance

on fossil fuel we can achieve greater fiscal gain and greater environmental gain in the long term.

Only I don't think the government has done anything of note to reduce reliance on fossil fuels . All they have done is stop production of oil and gas. To reduce reliance on fossil fuels would require investment into other options, which this policy fails to do.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1995364 13-Apr-2018 11:38

rjt123:
MikeB4:

Pumpedd:

Tiwai Smelter is due to quit NZ within the next 10 years leaving all of Manapouri's power available to the grid. Despite this the governments announcement is really a policy failure as its out of the blue, not researched and comes without precedence.

NZ will need to rely on fossil fuels for at least 30 odd years until technology is advanced enough. What the Government is doing will have zero effect of the carbon emissions or the environment and just make us more reliant on more expensive importation of fuel.

It is so dumb!

Not for power generation. Genesis announced sometime ago the closure of the Huntly plants. What is dumb is continuing to pursue oil exploration when the future clearly lays elsewhere. Any oil we were to find would be exported as raw crude and imported back as value added products saving us little. If we remove the reliance

on fossil fuel we can achieve greater fiscal gain and greater environmental gain in the long term.

Only I don't think the government has done anything of note to reduce reliance on fossil fuels . All they have done is stop production of oil and gas. To reduce reliance on fossil fuels would require investment into other options, which this policy fails to do.

Be reasonable, are they expected to fix everything now, today. *shakes head and goes to sit in the sun*

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1995425 13-Apr-2018 12:36

MikeB4:
rjt123:
MikeB4:

Pumpedd:

Tiwai Smelter is due to quit NZ within the next 10 years leaving all of Manapouri's power available to the grid. Despite this the governments announcement is really a policy failure as its out of the blue, not researched and comes without precedence.

NZ will need to rely on fossil fuels for at least 30 odd years until technology is advanced enough. What the Government is doing will have zero effect of the carbon emissions or the environment and just make us more reliant on more expensive importation of fuel.

It is so dumb!

Not for power generation. Genesis announced sometime ago the closure of the Huntly plants. What is dumb is continuing to pursue oil exploration when the future clearly lays elsewhere. Any oil we were to find would be exported as raw crude and imported back as value added products saving us little. If we remove the reliance

on fossil fuel we can achieve greater fiscal gain and greater environmental gain in the long term.

Only I don't think the government has done anything of note to reduce reliance on fossil fuels . All they have done is stop production of oil and gas. To reduce reliance on fossil fuels would require investment into other options, which this policy fails to do.

Be reasonable, are they expected to fix everything now, today. *shakes head and goes to sit in the sun*

Lucky to find any sun today, while where I am anyways... 😆

No they can't fix everything at once, but if environment was the priority then their policy would encourage sustainable sources. Merely turning off the tap doesn't decrease fossil fuel consumption as we are already importing oil anyways. We'll probably also import natural gas as well...

Just another well-intentioned but poorly executed policy by this government.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1995447 13-Apr-2018 12:53

MikeB4:

rjt123:
Only I don't think the government has done anything of note to reduce reliance on fossil fuels . All they have done is stop production of oil and gas. To reduce reliance on fossil fuels would require investment into other options, which this policy fails to do.

Be reasonable, are they expected to fix everything now, today. *shakes head and goes to sit in the sun*

It's generally considered prudent to ensure one has secured an alternate way to cross the river before one sets alight the bridge upon which one stands.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1995491 13-Apr-2018 13:46

6FIEND:

MikeB4:

rjt123:
Only I don't think the government has done anything of note to reduce reliance on fossil fuels . All they have done is stop production of oil and gas. To reduce reliance on fossil fuels would require investment into other options, which this policy fails to do.

Be reasonable, are they expected to fix everything now, today. *shakes head and goes to sit in the sun*

It's generally considered prudent to ensure one has secured an alternate way to cross the river before one sets alight the bridge upon which one stands.

I would say the government has done just that, they have not stopped current exploitation of reserves, they have not recalled current licences to explore new reserves, they have not stopped exportation of crude or importation of fuel products. They have stopped the issuing of new licences and given the scarcity of finds the net loss is minimal. The bridge is intact as it hasn't even been ignited.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1995498 13-Apr-2018 14:00

MikeB4:
6FIEND:

MikeB4:

rjt123:
Only I don't think the government has done anything of note to reduce reliance on fossil fuels . All they have done is stop production of oil and gas. To reduce reliance on fossil fuels would require investment into other options, which this policy fails to do.

Be reasonable, are they expected to fix everything now, today. *shakes head and goes to sit in the sun*

It's generally considered prudent to ensure one has secured an alternate way to cross the river before one sets alight the bridge upon which one stands.

I would say the government has done just that, they have not stopped current exploitation of reserves, they have not recalled current licences to explore new reserves, they have not stopped exportation of crude or importation of fuel products. They have stopped the issuing of new licences and given the scarcity of finds the net loss is minimal. The bridge is intact as it hasn't even been ignited.

Which begs the question, if they haven't done all those things, is this anything more than a political ploy with no actual substance?

Their first announcement might have been a mass rollout of ev charging stations, a feasibility subsidy for new sustainable power generation sources, or something that encourages reduction of our carbon footprint. Lmk if I've missed something but I don't recall anything as proactive as that.

1 | ... | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | ... | 268