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 | ... | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | ... | 268

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2021004 23-May-2018 10:47

tdgeek:

rjt123:

If solar becomes economically viable then it won't be hard to get mass installation fairly quickly, but until then, to claim power prices will drop is to make a significant assumption that that will somehow happen. Possible, but not exactly a given. I'll welcome lower power prices when they come, but I'm not holding my breath.

In my context I stated power prices generically, not power company prices. I should have clarified that. I.e. my lower power company bill due to my own generation

Id love to know the relationship between annual national grid generation and one million homes with Solar HW and Solar PV, and all business premises that have Solar PV. How much that can relieve the lakes, as well as add to the distributed grid

Thats fine, but solar energy isn't free till you have paid off the panels.

Housholds consume 32% of power

there are approx 1.5million housholds

If 1million households installed solar that generated 75% of their needs it would reduce the national generation requirements by about 15%

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021023 23-May-2018 11:04

rjt123:

tdgeek:

rjt123:

If solar becomes economically viable then it won't be hard to get mass installation fairly quickly, but until then, to claim power prices will drop is to make a significant assumption that that will somehow happen. Possible, but not exactly a given. I'll welcome lower power prices when they come, but I'm not holding my breath.

In my context I stated power prices generically, not power company prices. I should have clarified that. I.e. my lower power company bill due to my own generation

Id love to know the relationship between annual national grid generation and one million homes with Solar HW and Solar PV, and all business premises that have Solar PV. How much that can relieve the lakes, as well as add to the distributed grid

Thats fine, but solar energy isn't free till you have paid off the panels.

Housholds consume 32% of power

there are approx 1.5million housholds

If 1million households installed solar that generated 75% of their needs it would reduce the national generation requirements by about 15%

And that's the move from 85% to 100% green energy. Include solar HW and that reduces PV home usage, that goes back to the grid. Factor in business premises, thats a help

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2021082 23-May-2018 12:12

tdgeek:

And that's the move from 85% to 100% green energy. Include solar HW and that reduces PV home usage, that goes back to the grid. Factor in business premises, thats a help

Now all we have to do is wait for cheap solar panels to become available.

Interesting though, to produce a solar panel might generate about 50g of CO2 per kWh, as opposed to a natural gas at 110g per kWh, so while better, it's not totally green.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021083 23-May-2018 12:14

So, I thought they would immediately ban foreign ownership of property and no new taxes.

6 months later all I have seen happen is the creation of >100 working groups, new taxes, and no ban on foreign property ownership.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021100 23-May-2018 12:35

rjt123:

Interesting though, to produce a solar panel might generate about 50g of CO2 per kWh, as opposed to a natural gas at 110g per kWh, so while better, it's not totally green.

Is that from product of the panel, and spread over the 25 year life?

Yes, nothing produced is totally free. An EV causes Carbon in production, but you would expect that consumption of fuel over 200,000km would bring it well into the red.

The Earth needs CO2 it is part of the stabilisation process. We need the greenhouse effect, but too much is too much. Id like to see a technology that captures CO2, locks it up in say bricks, so it will stay inert. But for any ides to happen it needs to not be expensive, so we wont do it. When we are forced, it will still be expensive, maybe more so.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2021178 23-May-2018 14:52

tdgeek:

And that's the move from 85% to 100% green energy. Include solar HW and that reduces PV home usage, that goes back to the grid. Factor in business premises, thats a help

Would you install SHW and PV? I would have thought it's better to simply have more PV panels and a big HWC to pump energy into.

Mike

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021232 23-May-2018 16:25

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

And that's the move from 85% to 100% green energy. Include solar HW and that reduces PV home usage, that goes back to the grid. Factor in business premises, thats a help

Would you install SHW and PV? I would have thought it's better to simply have more PV panels and a big HWC to pump energy into.

For an individual today, yes, that makes perfect sense. You want to use as much was you can rather than export it at 1/3 the value of a kWh.

Im thinking of the future where we are 100% green energy. If all 1.5 million homes were solar PV and HW, the export is a resource for the grid, and HW uses solar but frees up PV for the home and for export to the grid. HW is also quite cheap, ours was 8k for a 5 BR suitable system and a 300L cylinder. Not only do we need less power from hydro and geo as we are generating some/much of our power needs, we are topping up the grid. That scenario could allow subsidy by way of for x years, the export is free. Im not sure how much more hydro we can sustain. In winter, low lakes and water locked up as snow doesnt help much.

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.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2021477 23-May-2018 21:52

MikeB4:

Given the gravity of the climate change disaster we are facing, ...

I've noticed this line of reasoning from you on a number of occasions recently, and with respect...

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a "given".

Were you aware that over the last two years, the largest global cooling event in the past century was recorded by NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)?

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.

Source.

As noted in the article, none of this argues against global warming... but it does serve to demonstrate that it is not necessarily rampant, cataclysmic, runaway warming that would herald impending doom.

And also, it illustrates how in the context of alarmist "climate change disaster", that the reporting of the facts appears to be somewhat one-sided in the media.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2021481 23-May-2018 21:56

6FIEND:

MikeB4:

Given the gravity of the climate change disaster we are facing, ...

I've noticed this line of reasoning from you on a number of occasions recently, and with respect...

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a "given".

Were you aware that over the last two years, the largest global cooling event in the past century was recorded by NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)?

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.

Source.

As noted in the article, none of this argues against global warming... but it does serve to demonstrate that it is not necessarily rampant, cataclysmic, runaway warming that would herald impending doom.

And also, it illustrates how in the context of alarmist "climate change disaster", that the reporting of the facts appears to be somewhat one-sided in the media.

Climate change is not Global warming. A warming of the climate maybe just one symptom.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021498 23-May-2018 22:52

6FIEND:

MikeB4:

Given the gravity of the climate change disaster we are facing, ...

I've noticed this line of reasoning from you on a number of occasions recently, and with respect...

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a "given".

Were you aware that over the last two years, the largest global cooling event in the past century was recorded by NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)?

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.

Source.

As noted in the article, none of this argues against global warming... but it does serve to demonstrate that it is not necessarily rampant, cataclysmic, runaway warming that would herald impending doom.

And also, it illustrates how in the context of alarmist "climate change disaster", that the reporting of the facts appears to be somewhat one-sided in the media.

Its good to read more on this topic. But I cant get this. Your article talks about cooling periods. I accept that, temp change is not linear. Chill of about 0.5C It talks about two 5 month cooling periods. And the 2018 first half year chill brings the global temp back to 1980's levels.

How does that relate to:

The year 2016 remains the warmest since records began, the United Nations agency said, with an average Earth surface temperature at 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Measured global average temperatures in 2015 and 2017 came in at 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer.

Which means 2015 was +1.1C, 2016 was +1.2C, 2017 was +1.1C These refer to degrees above pre Industrial levels.

Data from these sources confirmed that the last three years — 2015, 2016 and 2017 — were the warmest ever recorded.

http://www.dw.com/en/global-warming-2017-was-second-warmest-last-three-years-are-record-hot/a-42217407

Im not trying to debunk your article, its interesting. But it doesnt seem to reconcile. It may be that these two half years were cooler, lets say thats a seasonal issue, a spate of bad weather, so the other half years must have been warmer by the same degree. Therefore still averaging out to the 1.1, 1.2 and 1,1 of the three years.

Back to 1980's levels? Well, that makes sense. IIRC temp increase has doubles since the 1980's, so it took a long time to get to say +0.6C and since just 1980 it has gone another 0.6C, so his comment seems correct, but its worded in a media type way to make it sound sensational, but its actually correct. 1980 was about 0.6C cooler than now.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2021594 24-May-2018 09:20

tdgeek:

Im thinking of the future where we are 100% green energy. If all 1.5 million homes were solar PV and HW, the export is a resource for the grid, and HW uses solar but frees up PV for the home and for export to the grid. HW is also quite cheap, ours was 8k for a 5 BR suitable system and a 300L cylinder. Not only do we need less power from hydro and geo as we are generating some/much of our power needs, we are topping up the grid. That scenario could allow subsidy by way of for x years, the export is free. Im not sure how much more hydro we can sustain. In winter, low lakes and water locked up as snow doesnt help much.

Ideally grid tied solar would allow NZ to use less hydro so we can keep lakes at higher levels and use them, when solar generation is poor. Many of the retailers are also generators and would prefer to sell their own generation, hence the prices offered for exporting to the grid are often poor

Hydro - we could build dozens more hydro stations but I doubt the public would accept it. For every person shrieking about climate change, a carbon free economy and clean energy there is another person opposed to building clean generation - wind, hydro, whatever.

Our market doesn't incentivise investment in generation capacity that will be surplus during average to good years. [Edit: Hence when a bad year hits (which seem to be years in which energy requirements increase because it's cold) we have to start burning gas].

Mike

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021597 24-May-2018 09:26

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

Im thinking of the future where we are 100% green energy. If all 1.5 million homes were solar PV and HW, the export is a resource for the grid, and HW uses solar but frees up PV for the home and for export to the grid. HW is also quite cheap, ours was 8k for a 5 BR suitable system and a 300L cylinder. Not only do we need less power from hydro and geo as we are generating some/much of our power needs, we are topping up the grid. That scenario could allow subsidy by way of for x years, the export is free. Im not sure how much more hydro we can sustain. In winter, low lakes and water locked up as snow doesnt help much.

Ideally grid tied solar would allow NZ to use less hydro so we can keep lakes at higher levels and use them, when solar generation is poor. Many of the retailers are also generators and would prefer to sell their own generation, hence the prices offered for exporting to the grid are often poor

Hydro - we could build dozens more hydro stations but I doubt the public would accept it. For every person shrieking about climate change, a carbon free economy and clean energy there is another person opposed to building clean generation - wind, hydro, whatever.

Our market doesn't incentivise investment in generation capacity that is surplus during average to good years.

Thanks. I wasnt aware we had plenty of hydro capability. Yes, its a pity that greenies want green energy, but a few hundred hectares of green land can't be used. There are measures to cater for water wildlife too

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2021650 24-May-2018 10:02

tdgeek:

Thanks. I wasnt aware we had plenty of hydro capability.

We don't. We have sufficient for average to good years. In a bad year it's not so great. But no-one is incentivised to build clean generation that is surplus in most years - because most of the time it will just lower the price of electricity. Good for consumers, but bad for generators.

The risk of failure at the resource consent stage doesn't help either.

Mike

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2021662 24-May-2018 10:19

tdgeek:

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

Im thinking of the future where we are 100% green energy. If all 1.5 million homes were solar PV and HW, the export is a resource for the grid, and HW uses solar but frees up PV for the home and for export to the grid. HW is also quite cheap, ours was 8k for a 5 BR suitable system and a 300L cylinder. Not only do we need less power from hydro and geo as we are generating some/much of our power needs, we are topping up the grid. That scenario could allow subsidy by way of for x years, the export is free. Im not sure how much more hydro we can sustain. In winter, low lakes and water locked up as snow doesnt help much.

Ideally grid tied solar would allow NZ to use less hydro so we can keep lakes at higher levels and use them, when solar generation is poor. Many of the retailers are also generators and would prefer to sell their own generation, hence the prices offered for exporting to the grid are often poor

Hydro - we could build dozens more hydro stations but I doubt the public would accept it. For every person shrieking about climate change, a carbon free economy and clean energy there is another person opposed to building clean generation - wind, hydro, whatever.

Our market doesn't incentivise investment in generation capacity that is surplus during average to good years.

Thanks. I wasnt aware we had plenty of hydro capability. Yes, its a pity that greenies want green energy, but a few hundred hectares of green land can't be used. There are measures to cater for water wildlife too

The environmental impact of Hydro Dams goes greater than just the land used for the storage. The down stream impacts are significant to humans, flora and fauna.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2021665 24-May-2018 10:22

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

Thanks. I wasnt aware we had plenty of hydro capability.

We don't. We have sufficient for average to good years. In a bad year it's not so great. But no-one is incentivised to build clean generation that is surplus in most years - because most of the time it will just lower the price of electricity. Good for consumers, but bad for generators.

The risk of failure at the resource consent stage doesn't help either.

Capability, I meant for adding new stations, my bad. Generation needs to be 100% Govt owned as it once was. Profit, balance sheets, share prices dont belong in what is these days a necessity of life. Power prices need to reflect cost plus future maintenance = cheap. The invoicing companies need to make money from a daily charge and added value, and not on usage, its the wrong focus

1 | ... | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | ... | 268