Here's our summary of key economic events over the weekend that affect New Zealand with news the US economy is giving continuing signs of resilience even though more analysts think they can see a slowdown coming soon.
The US labour market just keeps on growing, defying those who thought it would be reversing by now. They added 428,000 jobs in April, the same as in March and above forecasts of 391,000. It marks a 12th straight month of job gains above 400,000 but easing from a February gain of 714,000 amid an increasingly tight labour market. Employment increased across all sectors, but that still leaves their economy down by -1.2 mln jobs from its pre-pandemic level.
Pay levels rose, but more modestly this month to be up +5.5% in a year, and far less than inflation's bite.
New data for American consumer credit demand revealed a surge in March, far above what was expected - double in fact. In fact, it was the biggest monthly gain in more than eleven years, driven across the board by sharp rises both revolving credit (like credit cards), and non-revolving credit (like car and personal loans). It isn't getting much attention, but the jump is quite something. February data was revised higher too. Inflation will be a part of it, but improved sentiment is as well.
Meanwhile, American mortgage rates accelerated their upward climb, reaching 5.27% for their benchmark 30yr mortgage and the highest level since August 2009.
The April jobs report for Canada wasn't positive this time, after a string of strong monthly results. This time, full-time employment fell and part-time employment rose, partly reversing months of the opposite gains. It is unclear whether this is just an aberration, or a turning point.
Chinese foreign exchange reserves slipped for a fourth straight month to $3.120 tln in April, the lowest value in a year even if this latest fall was small. Their gold reserves fell too.
It is hard to see them rising again any time soon. Over the weekend, Chinese Premier Li warned of a “complicated and grave” employment situation in the country. The shock waves from the extended lockdowns in Shanghai and Beijing are now rippling through their economy. The central government has instructed all regions to prioritise measures aimed at helping businesses "retain jobs and weather the current difficulties".
Global food prices eased by -0.8% month-over-month in April, but still remained close to the March record high. Prices of vegetable oil declined significantly and prices of cereals were down slightly. Meanwhile, dairy prices rose for the 8th straight month on sluggish production in Western Europe and New Zealand, and surging demand for butter amid shortages of sunflower oil and margarine in Western Europe. Lastly, prices rose firmly for meat (up +2.2%) on tight supplies in the northern hemisphere and disruptions in Ukraine.
The war in eastern Europe is suppressing air-cargo trade. In March, international volumes fell -5.4% from the same month a year ago. Asia/Pacific volumes were down only -2.7% on the same basis however.
The cost of shipping cargo containers by sea slipped again, mainly of weaker rates out of China. But interestingly, rates to China are now showing some long-absent firmness. The cost of shipping bulk cargoes rose more sharply, and are now at their highest of the year, in a move up worth watching.
A presidential election in the Philippines is underway, and may return the family of a former dictator to power as amnesia grips the country.
In Australia, they are in the last two weeks of their election campaign and recent polling is showing up an increasing appetite for change. Other recent polls show a similar turn. Even the Murdoch press polling concedes the shift.
The UST 10yr yield starts today up another +2 bps since this time Friday at 3.14%. The UST 2-10 rate curve is steeper at +41 bps. And their 1-5 curve is much steeper at +1077 bps. Their 30 day-10yr curve is also steeper at +265 bps. The Australian ten year bond is now at 3.56% and up another +7 bps. The China Govt ten year bond is up +1 bp at 2.84%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year is also up +1 bps at 3.82%.
The price of gold starts today back up +US$6 since this time Friday at US$1883/oz.
And oil prices are almost +2% higher today at just over US$109.50/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is now just over US$112.50/bbl. After only minor gains for many months despite high prices, the American rig count is starting to move higher again now and is back over 700 for the first time in two years.
The Kiwi dollar will open today softer again at 64.1 USc and nearly a two-year low. That has been a -7.5% devaluation since the start of April. Against the Australian dollar we are slightly firmer at 90.6 AUc. And against the euro we are unchanged at 60.8 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at 71.5 and its lowest since the end of February. On a TWI-5 basis the devaluation since the start of April is -4.4%.
The bitcoin price is down -5.4% from this time Saturday at US$34,057. At the beginning of April it was at US$47,294 so it is down -28% since then. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been high at just over +/- 3.3%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
79 Comments
Indeed. The forward spread not so much. Link
Forward spread primer - What, When, Nominal, Forward, Yes, Oil; or, Spreads Everywhere
A collateral primer might also be useful at this economic juncture. Some links:
It Isn't the Fed's Theater of Rate Hikes That Got Us Here
How True, call what you may, but blood bath has started, only to be seen, how deep it will be and how long will it last :
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/liam-dann-whos-swimming-naked-as-ti…
A cross lease house in farm cove - modest 3 bedroom one bathroom is up for auction and real estate agents are encouraging anyone with budget of $900000 plus (realistic expectation, if it is one) - Has a CV of 1.35Million. May be agents are being cheeky to attract but it reflects the mindset and may be new listing coming with new appraisal to meet the market.
Yep. If you go to an open home and ask the agent how much they think the property will go for at action they will give you a number well under what they know it will go for to get you to turn up to the auction (they don't care that some poor FHB gets their hopes up and wastes their money on a bunch of reports and inspections). And likewise they tell the vender a number well over what they know it will go for.
What I have always wondered is if they do put an asking price on a house and you put in an unconditional offer at that price, are they obliged to sell? False advertising otherwise isn't it?
So if it sold for 900k, that might be a 700k mortgage for the average punter?
This story linked below is about the difficulties faced by an educated, married, couple who bought a house outright for 700k. And mortgage rates are still rising.
Realistically, a 3 bed 1 bath average kind of house shouldn't be more than around 500k now that rates are rising, otherwise punters are just buying themselves a lifetime of eating 2-minute noodles and scrimping on time with their kids.
The cv of 1.35 million is just fairytale, bubbly, daydreaming rainbow and unicorns wet dreams. Those fantasy days are over. Kiwis are just Kiwis, with ordinary lives and a very ordinary economy. We can't all be owning million dollar properties ffs. Quantitative easing is not like some magic lotto draw that everyone in the country can win. Reality is about to bite.
It is a miserable little cul de sac that Mr Orr has driven us into.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/128529768/mother-says-time-with-her-baby…
Seems the problem has been for too long too many of us have been living beyond our means by banking on foisting massive debts on younger generations. Spending and consumption is funded by housing and we've used poor policy to ensure those prices get higher and higher, pulling more consumption forward from those younger generations and their future.
What a contrast to the 1960s and 70s when so much emphasis was put on making home ownership affordable for multiple generations of typical working Kiwis. So parasitic in recent decades, in comparison.
Not to start a generational war, but boomers are the dark side personality traits of their GI parents....so it was their role to undo all of the good work that was put in place by their parents to ensure housing was cheap in the 60's and 70's, inequality was low, and we had functional institutions. It was the boomers job to revolt against their parents and show them how they could do things better by ensuring housing isn't cheap, inequality can be very high if we want it to be, and who would want functional institutions anyway?
Note this is the theory of the 4th turning so don't shot the messenger if this triggers you for whatever reason (read the book then get back to me).
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/bc/9c/56bc9c9e6dca7c3d66a4b18b0ed0d5a…
And the 4th turning has been debunked by many as well. fundamentally it is just another conspiracy theorist rabbit hole that people who are unable to think for themselves, demonstrated by just parroting what the theory says, love to use to justify their personal angst.
to suggest that Boomers as a diminishing voter block are continuing to be the dominant sway for politicians is just rubbish. My view is that the evidence actually points to big money; the banks, the multinational corporations, the mega wealthy who can literally buy the votes of politicians who need their funds to run the advertising campaigns to get re-elected, and those few with the ego to think they are powerful enough to influence currency swings and dictate to Governments. Considering the actions and influences of these groups and you get a more rational reason for why the government is afraid to take real action to support its population. anything else is favouring the big money.
IO when the last boomer is dead and things haven't changed, who are you going to blame then?
However, we have retained and even expanded the generous allowances for the older generations while increasing costs for the younger generations. The pension was pegged to wage inflation, while bursaries were not. To that we added free public transport, cheaper healthcare, winter electricity allowances.
We foist debt on the young to enter the workforce, where in the past training was free and covered either by the taxpayer or the company. We use policy to keep housing prices inflated, where in the past we used it to make housing affordable. When it's suggested broadening the tax base away from productive working Kiwis to - for example - property speculation, the shrieks of outrage and victimhood are incredible.
Elections are run on tax cuts - and in Luxon's case - on free rides for property investors while working Kiwis pay the taxes that fund society (and subsidies for property investors). Will it be the multinational corporations and banks to blame for voting for that come election time, or some other demographic...?
Not to say there's no regulatory capture or improper influence from the finance sector. Witness NZ's burgeoning revolving door industry. But when over 50% of our welfare budget goes to universal benefits for the older generations, and over $4 billion on top of that to landlord subsidies, yet we're eroding services and saddling our young with massive debts for both job training and housing, there is something severe entitlement mentality visible in action.
the allowances are not based on generations. I went to uni late in life. i had none of the benefits, all of the penalties. I had a fsizable student loan, but my age prevented me from getting the higher paid jobs. For the last 15 or so years my bosses have all been my children's age. Don't get me wrong, most but not all have been very capable people. What I resent is the clear age discrimination.
As to the benefits, they are sops to the very poor not the generation per se. If you've tracked my posts you will know that I also rail against the current housing situation, but to blame it on boomers is just BS. Look closely and think about what happened. Boomers were promised they did not have to worry about retirement as the Government had it covered. But then the politicians couldn't sit by with the GSF siting at around a $billion in the late 70s when they had essentially screwed the economy, so they rewrote the law and dumped the GSF into the consolidated fund. While some would say we voted for it, it was a clayton's choice and I doubt no one understood the consequences much. Certainly of the era, we tended to trust our politicians, foolishly. Today their duplicity is much more readily apparent. Anyway with the GSF gone retirement was never a certainty, and the cost of the GRI was an ever increasing topic for politicians to say we had to address (wouldn't have been an issue if they hadn't pillaged the GSF) so people had to look forward. In the 80's, and 90's housing was affordable across the board so some people saw the opportunities, and the risks were low. The banks jumped on that band wagon too. With the gold standard gone, they could jump whole hog into the fractional banking and create credit for customers, secured against the properties. As property values started to rise, more people realised the issue and jumped in, and the banks suddenly realised this was far less risky than business lending, and of course more profitable. The final proof is when GR gave them a pot of money during COVID to support business's but they threw it into the housing market instead. The rest is history. Not boomers, big money.
(Are you a boomer Murray86?)
Generally its only people with a bias they don't want to acknowledge that get triggered by a theory. I'm sorry if you find the book uncomfortable reading and not reflective of your perspective.
I don't blame anyone....its not the boomers fault the are the darkside personality traits of their GI parents....just as Gen X are the dark side personality traits of their silent generation parents.....and milleannials are the darkside personality traits of their boomer parents (and as a result are similar to the GI's).
Have you read the book yet?
Gen X and the milleannials won't blame the boomers for the mess they've left behind in their period of demographic dominance, because they've been raised by their boomer parents to be too nice to do that. They will instead do the opposite and foster the conditions for the next boomer equivalent generation to arrive on the scene with far better prospects than were created by their parents....because they have learned from experience of what not to do when running a society....just as the GI's learned from their parents and the resulting period of depression and war.
This kind of ignores the point that BTC is a response to central bank policies. Giving central bank a digital currency that they can still devalue isn't going to address anything about what makes BTC appealing.
As for regulations - you'd have to regulate data at a stupid level to get rid of BTC/Crypto transactions. Far better to tax, regulate, clip the ticket and collect taxes on all the profit and new jobs you didn't have before. It's not really in any state's long term interests to ban crypto unless you're trying to ban something it represents; e.g. being able to transact without interacting with the state, in which case it's not really just about crypto, is it? Like at that point, you've got bigger problems.
So what happened in China could easily happen in other countries like India,America anywhere once governments have own digital currency they will put a stop to it like using to much energy or used for illegal purposes. In US it was illegal to buy gold at one time, if you had purchased Bitcoin at high say 1 million and when to sell today 500k loss. The only reason it at this level is people with huge amount of money trade it up then pull money out quickly then trade it up again trying to pull others in now there is 20000 types of crypto it will just fade out and people like yourself will get burnt, as at end of day it’s worth nothing.
Have to respond to this FUD
What countries own the most BTC?
Among developed countries, cryptocurrency use was most widespread in English-speaking countries – first and foremost the United States, but also the UK, Canada, South Africa and Australia. Emerging economies India, China and Brazil also registered as heavy users.2/02/2022
Regulating BTC transactions might prove impossible (or very difficult), but regulating the exchanges and the endpoints (where BTC is converted to 'real' currency or where BTC is bought) is very much possible and already in the works.
BTC might promise to solve some problems with 'real' currencies, but the power is ultimately in the hands of govts and reserve banks. Even if half of the population suddenly decided to switch to cryptocurrencies, the govt could simply crack down on it. As long as govts want a positive inflation (and they do!), cryptos will not be allowed to take over.
Ohhhh you havent made it past the first rookie lesson to learn. Please learn the difference between Bitcoin and Crypto, you can not recreate Bitcoin.
There is only one Bitcoin that is actually decentralised and very difficult to change, there is curerntly 228 Ehs defending it: Blockchain Explorer - Search the Blockchain | BTC | ETH | BCH
I understand that there is a difference between BTC and the more generic term 'crypto'. Now explain to me why someone can't just create another BTC-like 'coin'. After all, BTC is just a set of rules that lots of people decided to follow. Anyone can come up with a new game like that, and talented people can write an implementation of it. Ultimately, demand and marketing decides which ones can gain traction.
100% confident.
Basic maths, 21,000,000 Bitcoin that will ever exist. Current indlation rate of 1.74% and we just hit half way to the next halving, which will drop that to 0.84%pa. Bitcoin Block Reward Halving Countdown (bitcoinblockhalf.com)
Fiat currency is in a death spiral, they CAN NOT STOP printing money. Yes it might take a few years or even decades for people to start realising this but that is why poeple who put in the work early and do some research will be rewarded.
I will continue to stack, if we go anywhere near 25k or lower I will be buying everything I can get my hands on.
My new job in Aus will also let me stack so many more sats <3
Basic maths, 21,000,000 Bitcoin that will ever exist.
I see this popping up all the time as the main reason people think BTC will hold its value (and/or go to the moon). But having a limited supply of something is just one side of the equation.
You need an ever-increasing demand for that thing to increase its price. But that demand seems to be seeking new avenues now, even within the crypto world.
If a significant percentage of wealthy people decide to store a big chunk of their money in BTC instead of stocks, bonds and real estate, govts and central banks are guaranteed to crack down on it. There is a reason inflation is deemed necessary, and why most reserve banks around the worlds have a positive inflation mandate.
Now ask yourself, why would anyone store any amount of wealth in a thing/system where a few people control the creation of it, and can do so at no cost to themselves?
Money printer go Brrr, ergo any scarce assets will go up in $ terms as the $ looses its purchasing power.
Bitcoins adoption is where the internet was in 1996. Now honestly ask yourself, do you think more poeple will learn about Bitcoin in the future, or do you thing the current couple of hundred million users will be all that ever learn about it? Now to extrapolate that a bit, how man of those poeple might buy a bit? Or to extrapolate further, we now basicaly have 3 countries that have made it legal tender, do you think there will be no more in the future?
Just ask some simple questions, answer them honestly and at least one small part of why Bitcoin will go up in both $ price and purchasing power in the future might become clearer.
Would you like some reading material, I am more than happy to provide people with the tools to educate themselves :)
Fair enough, let's play the questions game then.
why would anyone store any amount of wealth in a thing/system where a few people control the creation of it, and can do so at no cost to themselves?
This is what we've been doing since the removal of the gold standard. It's not new, it's been almost a 100 years. And we do this because of regulations and the infrastructure around it.
do you think more poeple will learn about Bitcoin in the future [...] how man of those poeple might buy a bit?
Oh absolutely. Learning about it is one thing, putting money into it is very very different though. Most people don't invest in anything besides a savings account. Most people in the world can barely feed themselves, in fact. There are quite a few big steps between starvation and investing in speculative assets.
we now basicaly have 3 countries that have made it legal tender, do you think there will be no more in the future?
I recently read about how it flopped in El Salvador, as most people don't trust the system. Some other countries might decide to adopt it, but I can't see the US, China, India etc. making such a move in the next 10 years. And the world runs mostly on USD.
Now it's my turn. I'll ask only one question.
Why would a government of a powerful country such as China or the US give up all the perks of having control over its currency?
That is the point. Control.
Bitcoin provides a peaceful alternative system to the current monoply on money system.
As Friedrich Hayek said: “I don’t believe we shall ever have good money again before we take it out of the hands of government,” he concluded in an interview given at the University of Freiburg in 1984 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-k_Fc63tZI). “We can’t take it violently out of the hands of government. All we can do is by some sly, roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop.”
You cant tell me that a monetary good that provides this service has no value to billions of people around the world.
You dont have to buy and hold Bitcoin long term to use it. You can also use it like Strike does, as a payment rails network. Or alternatively you can have a quick look at the charts in this article about people in countries where their purchasing power is being rapidly eroded.
As Bitcoin’s Price Hits a New All Time High, What Happens Next? | by Jason Deane | Original Crypto Guy | Medium
And that was in 2020 when it was at $10,600 and inflation in developed countries as less than 3%.
Taken together with the others above, it means that 13.8% of the world’s currencies have performed worse than bitcoin (or are just about to) and 953,321,799 people (or 12.20% of the entire population of the planet) would have been able to better preserve their wealth even if they had bought bitcoin at, or very close to, the top in dollar terms.
"Now ask yourself, why would anyone store any amount of wealth in a thing/system where a few people control the creation of it, and can do so at no cost to themselves?"
I think you just undermined your own argument. It's precisely because the system where the wealth is controlled that people are willing to use it. People's wealth is linked to their government and society. This means that people have the ability to shape the system to their needs and use it to redistribute wealth more fairly.
The flip-side of this question is why would anyone store any amount of wealth in a system where there is no means of society coming together and exerting any form of control over it and where 90% of the wealth has already been issued to who know who? This is a system where there cannot be any form of wealth redistribution or equity.
"There is a reason inflation is deemed necessary, and why most reserve banks around the worlds have a positive inflation mandate" Exactly; if the world adopted bitcoin as the main currency it would be so deflationary that no one would ever buy anything because the value would be increasing so rapidly. Having a limited supply only makes sense if the main purpose is a store of value, it does not make sense for a currency used to trade.
So you would never spend money on anything? Not even food, fuel, housing..? You get my point, people always have to spend money on what they need, but you dont NEED to waste money on luxuries, therefor only services and goods that add value ot peoples lives will be profitable enough to survive. Anythign that is not profitable and a waste of resources will go bankrupt.
The point is, you should be rewarded for saving you money, not forced to spend it as soon as you get it because it looses value at 6.9% per year...
Curerntly I agree that Bitcoin has not matured to the means of exchange phase yet. It is still being monetised. Once the price reaches in excess of $1,000,000 per coin, the volatility will be reduced and so the opportunity cost of spending your Bitcoin will decrease, so you will start using it to purchase goods rather than save.
Read "the price of tomorrow" by Jeff Booth.
Money is not printed (mostly). It is (mostly) lent into existence.
Understanding that is key. If your investment strategy is based on the idea of "money printing" then your strategy has a flawed foundation.
There is no "money printer go brrrrrr". That is not how money is created.
The central banks told me so too.
The whole concept of "money printing" has been promulgated by central banks, because it is convenient for them. Jeff Snider does a great job of explaining the smoke and mirrors used by central banks, and also explains "money creation" in the shadowy Eurodollar system.
Pretty much agree with you Fitz. Governments seem to have largely stepped back from regulating the amount of money in an economy since Bretton Woods in 1971. this abrogation of their responsibilities has ceded humongous amounts of power to the private banks who profit hugely from their laziness. Fractional banking systems increase their profits as well. And I do agree that this is were a lot of the money in an economy comes from, except that it pretty much is getting hoovered up big time from the banks rather than circulating in the economy. But another source on money entering the economy is Government spending.
If that spending is from taxation revenues then the difference is zero. But as we know that since the link to gold was severed, Governments can to all intents 'print' money. The issue is how they spend it. This source is referred to as 'deficit' spending. Where Governments do regulate the amount of money in an economy, they would have to do this periodically to account for the expected growth.
Fractional banking systems increase their profits as well.
Fractional reserve banking does not really exist according to Richard Werner because there are no real 'hard assets' backing the lending. To save you time and see the discussion in a water cooler context:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Prof-Richard-Werner-say-that-fractional-…
I've done a bit of a scroll through it an he seems to ignore some fundamentals that a few who contribute here point out.
Our banks have capital requirements. That is the amount of capital they must hold in reserve to meet short term withdrawal needs. But the 'Fractional' banking system means they can lend out to a ratio of that capital. In the US post the GFC in 2008 I read somewhere that the ratio in use then was around 30:1. In NZ it was suggest as being around 12 - 15:1. this is based on the understanding of the percentage of loans which become distressed, and don't get paid back, I guess with a fudge factor dialled in too. They will also rely on legislation to protect them if they face a run. One 'hard asset' they have to back up their lending is depositors funds. Before 1971 these funds would have been the basis of most if not all their lending. Basically for every $100 dollars deposited, they will lend out between $1200 to $1500. Current interest rates are around 1.5%, but loans are around 5%. So if banks are lending at a ratio of 12:1, they have loaned out $1200 at 5%, getting x40 more than what they are paying their depositors! That's fractional banking!
Money is made in the bear marklets.
46% drops are nothing we havent seen before, yet they represent the best time to accumulate.
When? The markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Stack sats in cold storage that are not on an exchange being rehypothicated and wait for the inevitable supply crunch and run on the exchanges.
Inflation adjusted USD/BTC is down 46.3% year-on-year. Asking all BTC holders on this forum: How confident are you that BTC will go back above its all time high at some point? Also, when do you think it will happen?
Seen calls as lows is USD6K, but anyone's guess. It would not surprise me to see BTC go back to its ATH and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens this year. Log time hodlers are still accumulating. The retail market price only represents those coins on exchange and retail activity is low right now.
This will be the 9th time that Bitcoin has retraced more than 50% since I've been bagholding. Each time it's happened theres been articles and comments heralding the end of Bitcoin. Each time the rumours of Bitcoin's demise have been overstated.
Who knows, perhaps this is the end. Right now I'm not losing any sleep.
This will be the 9th time that Bitcoin has retraced more than 50% since I've been bagholding. Each time it's happened theres been articles and comments heralding the end of Bitcoin. Each time the rumours of Bitcoin's demise have been overstated.
Most people have never owned an asset that behaves like this. It's understandable. Let's do a little dollar cost average exercise (monthly) to give it a bit of perspective.
Past 6 months: -9%
Past 12 months: -6.8%
Past 2 years: +88%
Past 3 years: +195%
Past 4 years: +328%
Past 5 years: +440%
Most people have never owned an asset that behaves like this. It's understandable.
Do all crypto fans have to use that condescending tone?
Anyways, here's the returns on TSLA shares:
Past 6 months: -15%
Past 12 months: +38%
Past 2 years: +430%
Past 3 years: +1705%
Past 4 years: +1341%
Past 5 years: +1239%
Boom, outperformed! And not even with DCA, just buying once, in May every year.
Crypto people have to understand that past performance is no indication for future performance.
Thanks James. "“Mr Shaw claims that this spend will ‘reduce’ emissions by 36,000 tonnes over ten years. That means he’s paying $278 per tonne vs the $76.50 it would cost at the current ETS price.”
“But it’s even worse than inefficient. Because coal burners are already covered by the ETS, the emissions are simply freed up to go elsewhere because the ETS runs on a ‘cap and trade’ principle.”
“When Mr Shaw says that the 36,000 tonnes is the ‘same as taking 1400 cars off the road’, he is just plain wrong. In fact, this announcement is the same as putting 1400 cars onto the road – the government’s spend simply results in a waterbed effect whereby the emissions are simply shifted.”
https://mailchi.mp/1c4bad5e3b4a/james-shaws-school-boiler-announcement-…
It's easy, intellectually. When Profile puts up something, it's 'on behalf' spin. All one has to do, is spot the flaw. Because there is always a flaw - that's what spin is.
This is all about the physics; replacing coal-fired boilers with whatever - heatpumps or wood-fired - is indeed a win, emissions-wise. Yes, there are some fossil fuels expended effecting the morph - but they are more than offset operationally. And the coal - a useful feedstock for other than burning, in some cases - is left unburnt.
The disingenuous bit is that 'someone else will do something under the cap'. That cap, of course, is an entirely artificial construct; the idea in a physical sense, is to reduce both real emissions (they are killing our planetary habitat, over a longer timeframe) and to slow/reverse the draw-down of finite resources. Which, valued correctly, must near infinite value as they are depleted towards zero.
A pity 'free speech' allows such drivel.
"...but they are more than offset operationally." Idling gas and coal plants have kept the lights in the UK and Germanyfor the past fortnight as the wind has failed to blow. How efficient is it to have an rusting offshore windmill and an idling power plant on standby? Go nuclear and be done with it.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electricity-data/ch…
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iaYVLOQOXrms/v2/pidjEf…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-05/european-gas-prices-…
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/
"Nuclear power does not tolerate rapid changes in power output. It can adjust over a matter of hours, not minutes or seconds. It is therefore not useful for balancing short-term intermittency arising demand fluctuations or from wind and solar, etc."
Read the whole treatise - a real scientist being honest.
Schools, of course, should be retro-fitted to be passive-solar, as much as possible, first. It cost's nothing to run, forever. But............................................................. who would pay Profile then?
Given we are at all out war with climate change surely the benefits of no CO2 from nuclear would outweigh perceived balancing limitations?
"Contrary to the widespread impression that large-scale nuclear power stations are inflexible, Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) are in many cases technically able to serve the demand of load following (LF) operation as well as frequency control of the transmission grid, which is particularly useful and necessary in countries with a high share of renewable power generation. LF operation has been performed in Germany and France (and other countries outside of Europe, for example the US) for several decades now.
...As shown in Figure 3, the time ranges, over which the load gradient can be driven, are similar. A NPP can provide 630 MW within 10 minutes, a hard coal PP 480 MW within 12 minutes and a CCGT around 500 MW within 21 minutes. This results in maximum power gradients of 63 MW/min, 26 MW/min and 38 MW/min respectively. “Thus not only nuclear can run in load follow mode, but it can be better than coal and CCGT”
SNETP-Factsheet-7-Load-following-capabilities-of-nuclear-power-plants.pdf
Good crack. At least someone is making some money.
https://rbnenergy.com/sites/default/files/styles/extra_large/public/fie…
I love the Bitcoin chat. I said a while ago that as soon as governments release a digital currency, Bitcoin is dead. They don't need to "Ban" bitcoin they just need to make a system so you cannot actually buy anything with it at which point its value goes to ZERO. It will simply not be a legal tender and will remain on the fringe in exactly the same place it is now. Also it only needs some sort of a serious shock and it will crash and burn all by itself. Ultimately Bitcoin is doomed, all of it will be owned by to few people, its a train smash waiting to happen. If I had owned a serious amount of it I would have quit and sold the lot when it hit that USD$67K a while back.
Playing Bitcoin is the same as playing the stock market except you are buying shares for something that only exits in hyperspace. The early adopters have made a stack of money (AKA Ponzi), those getting into it now are the bag holders. The only people making money on it now are on the backs of those losing money in the market swings. If you treat it like shares and not a currency there has been a lot of money made up until the present day by relatively few people.
I said a while ago that as soon as governments release a digital currency, Bitcoin is dead.
The govts releasing CBDCs is not a solution to destroying BTC. In fact, it's the opposite. CBDCs are simply another digitization of fiat money. If central banks implmented a 'sound money' monetary system, that would be the biggest threat to BTC. That is not going to happen in the near term (and it does not represent what a CBDC is). And even if it does, BTC and gold can still exist as sound money. The U.S. govt in particular is well past the point of banning BTC anyway. It would be a political death wish to both major political parties.
Now please tell me how you do that with Bitcoin?
The centralisation of hash power in one jurisdiciton such as the USA is a potential attack vector if they can push through shit regulations. Such as forcing miners to censor transactions from certain addresses. But then any of the non US based hash rate will just mine those transactions and take hte higher fee they are offering.
Decentalisation has no leader.
Always cults of personality.
Quite remarkable this time around, though. The viability of the country hangs in the balance. New Zealand will absolutely be able to attract many more the Philippines' highly educated young professionals if Marcos wins, despite our parasitic property market.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.