sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods takes up challenge to provide more detail on what the Government's plan to transition away from oil and gas looks like

Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods takes up challenge to provide more detail on what the Government's plan to transition away from oil and gas looks like

*By Megan Woods

This is an article Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods wrote in response to a column by Jenée Tibshraeny questioning the Government's planning around New Zealand's transition away from oil and gas.  

The Government has recently announced we will not be issuing new offshore exploration permits on top of the 100,000 square kms of permits already issued. Instead, we’ll only be issuing new acreage onshore in the Taranaki for at least the next three years.

We aren’t changing existing permits or the rules for moving from exploration to mining, which means exploration and production could continue for years to come.

And for regions that currently rely on fossil fuel production for jobs and income, we’ve committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars over the coming decades in things like clean energy to ensure there will be plenty of local, high paying jobs in the future.

This is a planned, measured and careful transition away from exploration for new fossil fuels and towards renewable energy over the coming decades.

Today I want to elaborate on the reasons for this decision, and to tackle some of the arguments we have seen trotted out in opposition to it.

Everyone accepts climate change is happening and that we need to play our part in fighting it and adapting to it.

But there are also clear economic reasons for this decision as well:

If we don’t take action and plan for this transition we will be left behind, meaning big economic shocks that will hurt individuals, businesses and communities as fossil fuel production becomes uneconomic in the face of changing consumer demand and climbing carbon prices.

It doesn’t have to be that way. If we have the courage to think ahead, to look beyond just the three year political cycle and plan for ten, twenty and thirty years down the track we can get ahead of the curve and avoid the big shocks that are coming.

That’s why by protecting existing permits for years to come and by investing in alternative jobs in the regions, we’re pursuing a long term transition to get us ready for the future.

The truth is that regions like Taranaki have known for a long time they need to be thinking about the future and they have already been planning. For example the locally produced TaPuae Roa – Make Way for Taranaki, lays out an economic development strategy for the coming decades built on clean energy, advanced agriculture, the Maori economy and the visitor sector. All of these are areas where Taranaki has strong competitive advantages and strengths to build on.

When I was there recently I spoke to one business leader who argued convincingly that Taranaki can be New Zealand’s clean energy capital – many of the skills built up in Taranaki’s oil and gas industry position them to lead in that industry while also allowing high wage jobs to continue to be based in the region. 

We’re seeing this overseas for example with companies like StatOil who are taking workers skilled in offshore oil rigs and putting them to work constructing offshore wind farms.

This Government has big plans to support these kinds of emerging industries – we’ve announced a billion dollars each year to supporting regional growth, as well as a hundred million dollar clean energy fund. We’ve also just announced plans for a 12.5% research and development tax incentive for firms investing in research and development.

And we’ll work hand in hand with the local community on transition planning. That means central government will support local leaders thinking about the next opportunities.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has already begun gearing up to do this. A transitions team with its own general manager will lead this work and when necessary pull in other government departments and ministers around issues such as skills training.

The combination of long lead times, smart local people and businesses planning ahead, and substantial government support on a scale we haven’t seen before will mean jobs and businesses will be protected in the coming decades as we make this transition.

Now it has been suggested that there is a risk this decision will mean New Zealand misses out on the opportunity to create a thriving export industry in liquid natural gas – one that could export huge amounts of New Zealand’s gas to replace coal plants in places like China and India.

The economics on that suggestion don’t stack up however. New Zealand’s gas is relatively expensive compared to the major global exporters – because of the higher costs of production here compared to overseas.

For example, as journalist Rod Oram has recently pointed out, “In 2016, our business users paid an average of US$26.60 per gigajoule, whereas Australia’s cost was US$15.60 and the US’s US$9.20.”

 The idea that we could flood international markets when our gas is over twice as expensive as that produced overseas simply isn’t realistic - especially when any export of liquid gas would require billions of dollars of infrastructure before it could begin.

Likewise, the suggestion made by some that this decision will lead to an imminent shortage of gas in New Zealand ignores the fact that not only is there an existing 100,000 square kilometres already out for exploration on top of the 10 years or so worth of existing gas reserves we have, but that we will be issuing new onshore exploration permits for years to come.

Some suggest that ending new exploration permits makes it less likely existing permits will be taken up and turned into new production because of a fear this signal will make New Zealand a less attractive place to invest in exploration.

But that ignores the fact there’s been no change to the right to extend an exploration permit or turn it into a mining permit.

Investment decisions are made on economics – by forces of supply and demand and the economics of those decisions are the same today as they were the day before the announcement.

And let’s be clear: this is not happening in isolation. It’s part of a comprehensive plan to tackle climate change and reduce emissions.

We’re strengthening the emissions trading scheme, introducing an Independent Climate Committee to set carbon budgets beyond the political cycle, investing billions in public transport to reduce vehicle emissions, investing millions in incentivising the transition to EVs, including upgrading charging infrastructure and developing EV options for heavy vehicles.

The Government is also leading on procurement, purchasing more electric vehicles ourselves which are then on sold into the private vehicle fleet.

These policies on EVs were all recommendations of the recent Productivity Commission report on transitioning to a low carbon economy.

And that same report gives strong evidence that long term signals like our decision on oil and gas will actually help ease the transition by giving certainty to investors, business and the community. 

The report argues: “Businesses and consumers will be better able to manage the risks of moving to a low-emissions economy and plan for behavioural and structural changes required in a stable and credible policy environment. This requires a strong signal from government making a long term commitment to the transition.”

That strong signal about the future is exactly what this policy delivers. It means people can make informed decisions knowing the Government is working alongside them.

And to my mind this sets up a very clear political choice for New Zealanders.

Because just this past weekend National Party Leader Simon Bridges was talking up the changes he is hoping to make to his party to make them more environmentally credible. And yet in the same breath he was promising to completely reverse the decision.

That desire to be seen as promising action on climate change but to refuse to actually do anything about it brings to mind the famous quote by St Augustine: “Lord, make me chaste – but not yet.”

New Zealand deserves real leadership on these issues. A careful, managed plan to transition our economy towards lower emissions while protecting jobs and communities. That’s what this Government is providing.

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.

84 Comments

Here's my message to Woods .........." I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure, which is: Try to please everybody."

And just for the avoidance of doubt as to the source of these wise words , and allegations of Plagarism , this is not an original thought of mine .

Quite simply they are pleasing the lunatic fringe inside the Green party , climate change extremists , starry e-eyed uni students and now she is trying to please those who are going to lose their livelihoods by promising 'clean " new industry .

New Plymouth will become just like any New Zealand provincial town that once had a meat works, dead .

So Ms Woods please shake the other one , its got a bell on it

Up
0

The focus of this article is worrying.
The point of this change in policy as I understood from Labour, is to help tackle climate change. So you would have thought Megan Woods would provide more detail about how this policy delivers that objective. However the only reference to the main objective is as follows:
"Everyone accepts climate change is happening and that we need to play our part in fighting it and adapting to it."
Which of course does nothing to convince anyone.

The rest of the article was directed at what is good for the economy. This is sounding very Muldoon-like.
Is the minister focussing on climate change, or some vision of the economy that she wants to dictate to businesses?

Up
0

The Productivity Report she referred to was prepared for the previous Government. They are now working on one for the Coalition.

Up
0

If you want people to transition, they need to have alternatives, as stated in the article gas in NZ is expensive yet there is nothing to transition to. If there is nothing to transition to then any price signals are irrelevant.
The silence on Coal is deafening, guess the environments not that important after all.
NZ uses a small amount of coal but exports most of its Coal. i.e. We seem quite happy to have others burn our coal.
Does anyone not see the irony.

Up
0

What price signals are you referring to that the government are setting?
It's not the job of government to invent new energy alternatives.
As for your comment on coal, that sounds like whataboutism to me. Unhelpful.

Up
0

“This is a planned, measured and careful transition away from exploration for new fossil fuels and towards renewable energy over the coming decades.” WHAT NONSENSE there is no plan

Up
0

Not true, I hear they have purchased some magic beans and we should be expecting miraculous industry growth of some sort any time now to fill the massive economic hole created by their unthinking dictat

Up
0

The first pat of the sentence is true.. but there is zero evidence to support the second part. What initiatives have they annouced to move towards anything renewable? I guess raising the petrol tax will casue a few to convert to walking/cycling, but 3/5ths of SFA.

Up
0

LOL, really ?

Up
0

I just bought an electric bike. My 22l/100km guzzler gets a holiday in fine weather.i can still drink coffee on my 10 minute commute.
Auckland based. Converts - 1

Up
0

The first part of the sentence isn't true either.
If it were, there would be a plan to transition away from coal.
And the reason why is obvious - New Plymouth and Taranki are blue electorates, the West Coast is a red electorate.
So you see, it's all highly principled.

Up
0

Where is the evidence of a plan to keep exploring for new coal?

Up
0

We have made no announcements about ending coal, and we certainly haven't done any work," she (Megan Woods) told Q+A.

"What I'm saying is there are no plans to do that. We haven't done anything."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103304189/Incredulous-for-Ene…

Up
0

You do realise that to stop issuing new exploration permits the govt just has to sit on its hands? Literally doing nothing is what it takes to stop new coal exploration. Judging by comments from some on here thats all this govt is good for. ;) So yeah, get back to me when the govt issues new coal exploration permits.

Up
0

There's no need for incentives to switch to renewable energy production. Renewable energy via solar already offers home owners the greatest guaranteed return on their income from any form of investment.

http://www.firekiwi.co.nz/2017/09/01/is-now-the-right-time-to-go-solar/

http://www.firekiwi.co.nz/2018/01/27/become-867000-00-richer-with-solar…

Up
0

Those numbers seem hugely optimistic to me. 3090kWh + the extra 1000kWh from the diverter generated and used without battery storage.. so 4000kWh a year? Our house (admittedly with only two of us living there) has used at most 304kwh a month, we wont even use that much power all year..

Most of our power use would be morning and evening/night when we get home from work and fire up the oven, TV, lights etc. yet that site implies they are going to generate and use that much energy in the daylight hours when people are generally at work or out. Sure, we could put some things like washing machine and dishwasher on timers to run middle of the day, and hot water would obviously be the first thing you switch to being a daytime load but that really seems to be a very high estimate of how much power is going to be generated and consumed by solar system without battery storage.

Up
0

You're not an average representation if your household is using sub 4,000kwh per year. The low user cutoff is around 9,000-10,000kwh per year.

Use the Energywise calculator to see how much energy is generated from solar.

Up
0

No, the average household electricity use per year is 7000kWh from MBIE figures. https://figure.nz/chart/OO85CulTuE2TRnsE

But that website is saying they are generating and using over half that amount with solar.. I think you'd have to be a very high use household to achieve that without storage.

PS, did run the calculator. gave a 23year payback on that system, north facing roof in auckland, assuming no hardware failures. So no, not a good move for us.

Up
0

I'd recommend you ignore their payback stats as it.

1. I believe ignores inflation of power costs.
2. Does not compenstate for increased self use of solar power thanks to power diverters.
3. Long interest free lending periods that can be worth $2,000.

What it is good for is estimating you annual power generation.

Either way I'm not here to convince everyone to go solar. For some people such as yourself it may not make financial sense. But for many people it will.

Up
0

The real cost power on the wholesale market hasn't moved in 7 years. Should not assume price increases in any analysis.

Up
0

On the retail market I think prices have gone up. I would say it is reasonable to assume 2% inflation which is the reserve bank's target. It might be high or it might be low, but it is less arbitrary than assuming 0% inflation.

Up
0

Nope, the per unit cost has actually been dropping the last few years, its the connection charges that are increasing. Non-storage solar wont help with that.

https://figure.nz/chart/jqOwPAOxkpET0RJy

Up
0

Self generation will help.

Up
0

They don't seem to take into account maintenance and lifespan. If the panels only last 20 years say, the investment isn't that great.
However I reckon the main reason National sold the power companies is because they are essentially doomed. They can't keep putting retail prices up while the cost of solar and batteries is coming down. If in say 10 years time you can go completely off the grid with solar and batteries for say $10k, that would be a fantastic investment. It seems fairly likely to me...

Up
0

Solar panels are called renewable because you have to keep renewing them.
They basically weaken the idea & economics of the central grid but possibly make some sense on a (personal) resilience basis... temporarily.

Up
0

Even better if you can stay on grid and get net metering (or close to) so that excess power generated during the day gets used by local businesses (and hydro etc throttled back, storing the water for night time use) instead of all the energy losses into and out of battery system.

Up
0

The real life span of solar panels is closer to 50 year. The 20 year value is the guaranteed length for a set amount of output. In the real world the last much longer - no moving parts certainty helps.

Up
0

Appears the COL are using the underpants gnome economic plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
Phase 1 Stop oil and gas exploration
Phase 2 ?
Phase 3 Profit

Up
0

Lol.

Up
0

Phase 1: Draw on a whiteboard a box saying "Regional Fund $1b".
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

Up
0

What a load of negative codswallop from you the COW's. It is surely no wonder the National Party went belly up having supoorters like you miserable lot. Try reading the article with at least a measure of objectivity.

Up
0

Editor: Deleted comment

Up
0

I read the article, and I found no evidence of a plan.

I also found no evidence that what the CoL has decided to do will result in the burning of any less burning of fossil fuels in NZ, let alone globally.

It's a bit like knocking your house down because you think there's a storm coming, but having no idea how to build a stronger one.

Up
0

It is indeed a miserable lot but all to common comment stream. Hallmarks are confirmation bias at max, scientific illiteracy, refuse to acknowledge solid evidence.
We will move forward on climate change because you cant fudge physical reality, and you cant fool the insurance industry with rant.

Up
0

The problem for New Zealand is that we have a generation indoctrinated after Al Gore's claims were released into out schools without any opposing evidence. Well "Climate Warming" failed so they changed the name to "Climate Change". The latest is that we now have to differentiate between weather and climate. There is no global warming anywhere in the world today. How to argue with that as it can be applied to anything. Closer to home - how about the CO2 in the grass that cows eat not being subtracted from the cow's emissions. Forestry has subtractions so should agriculture to net out the carbon absorbed. Check out weather in Canada over past six years, Eastern Europe, a "beast from the East" Feb 2018 - parts of Siberia -62C. Imagine what will happen to the GDP when we have spent so much money on this "transition" and the weather/climate gets colder.

Up
0

If 99% of Doctors said you had cancer, would you keep searching for the one who said you didn't...even if that one was not an expert in the type of cancer diagnosed?

And you did this search because you just knew the 99% were wrong...even though you had no specialised knowldge yourself.

This is how 'dumb' climate denialists are.

Up
0

Sorry, but dumb is wanting to remove what you think might possibly be a cancerous vital organ without having any idea how to replicate its function.

Up
0

Again, when 99% of the doctors are saying that lump on your liver is cancerous and malignant and 1% aren't.. do you cut it out while you have 70% healthy liver left, or do you wait for the cancer to take the entire liver out and move to the spinal column?

Up
0

"For example the locally produced TaPuae Roa – Make Way for Taranaki, lays out an economic development strategy for the coming decades built on clean energy, advanced agriculture, the Maori economy and the visitor sector. All of these are areas where Taranaki has strong competitive advantages and strengths to build on."

You're commenting on something ten years away, technology advancement is rapid, the region already has a plan, the Govt are supporting it with regional development funds. To give you an idea of the advancement in technology, here's a timely and topical article on 3D printing organs https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/will-3d-printing-sol…

Up
0

Rastus, there are 30 odd thousand scientists who do not believe the man made global warming theory is correct.

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Up
0

And the qualifications of them are here - http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

The study of climate change, which is a specialized field of science, is called climatology, there are 39 signatories who have climatology qualifications of any level who have signed that petition. The rest are like dentists giving you brain surgery, both doctors, but you'd get very different results from your operation.

Up
0

It is not the case of 99% of Doctors telling you you have cancer- but rather a case of 100% of scientifically illiterate loonies telling you that 99% of Doctors say its cancer , endlessly quoting one another to support the claim.

Up
0

Cool, and regale us all with your scientific qualifications....Scientific principles are designed to be falsified, go ahead, prove it wrong, get it peer-reviewed make yourself a global name, win a Nobel prize and a lifetime's legacy.

Up
0

Remember Al forecasting our children will never see snow !

Up
0

A typical Bai Zuo -- solving non-problems by creating lots of real problems.

Up
0

" Everyone accepts climate change is happening and that we need to play our part in fighting it and adapting to it."

Not really, only the ones who have a skin in the game or completely fooled by the rogue science and clever marketing and propaganda starting from primary schools to higher political levels ... the biggest and worse green gas heating up the planet is Water Vapour ... ! so let's stop breathing

The rest of this article is justification of the first opening wrong assumption.

CC will suck out money from the populous ( in form of taxes and costs) to satisfy some fools and fill up the pockets of some big corporations who have so far highly invested in pushing this shite up hill.

There is no solid proof yet of such a change ... only anecdotal events and selective Data are used to push one side of this argument.

And, logically there is no harm in selling gas and oil to OTHERS and building Green Power Alternatives with that money for decades to come instead of depleting the economy by billions of $$s... eh? ...
But Logic and Green do not mix well .. do they?

Up
0

Oooh who to believe some random on the internet who bought some property or climate scientists with their degrees in the field, who've rigorously studied the facts over decades? It's a toughie alright....

Up
0

Solidname - I took the time to see what the petition was about and the value of different qualifications. I then went and looked up on numerous sites what qualifications you need to call yourself a climatologist. Sorry but you lose - all those who signed have huge importance and value to the entire study of the subject.

Up
0

Good on you for researching, there's a really simple explanation for what "you need to call yourself a climatologist", you need to have studied climatology and have the relevant qualifications. There's a reason why science specialises, it's because it's immensely complex, for the same reason and to a lesser degree why medical folk specialise. You can believe what you want, it doesn't change facts and a scientific theory explains facts. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Up
0

LOL, ask the right questions buddy: WHO PAID THEM?

and who cut funds to the ones who proved the opposite??

AND who deleted the historic DATA? and WHY?

so, let's not go there eh?

Up
0

No really let's go there, sounds like fun.

While we're testing who knows what and having some research giggles, who's funding climate change denial propaganda? Which companies have buried the evidence of their knowledge about climate change?

And also go prove it's wrong, please, science is designed to be proved wrong, make it happen, you'll make far more money than you ever have through property investment.

Up
0

...dumb and getitng dumber.

Up
0

indeed you are.

Up
0

Everyone know climate change happens - only muppets believe it can be stopped by government decree. Any additional wind power added has to be backed up by fossil fuel base load unless her green mates are going to start building some dams/geothermal or equivalent baseload.

Here is what a "transition"looks like in the real world.

"Have fossil fuels been substituted by renewables? An empirical assessment for 10 European countries.

...The results highlight that electricity production systems have maintained and increased fossil fuels to back up RES and to satisfy electricity demand. In fact, RES cannot satisfy electricity consumption without resorting to fossil fuel electricity generation. This has hindered the shift from fossil fuels to RES, and has cancelled out the advantage of the shift to electrification,because of the need to burn fossil fuels. Furthermore, it should be stressed that natural gas, hydropower and cross-border markets are flexible, and their contribution to the electricity grid has been essential to back up RES intermittency and to satisfy peaks of demand."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518300983

Up
0

Batteries.

Up
0

Molten salt storage + turbines

Up
0

Cross border links from renewable energy sources, so one countries peak energy production con-indices with another countries peak energy use.

If all countries move to solar, and are all interlinked (at least across asia/europe), then it'd be significantly easier for renewable to reduce the peak load.

Up
0

I once went out with a woman who had photocopied notes from a group proposing this. It must have been a slow burn idea because that was the late 1980s.

Up
0

It's a dollars game. With solar power production now below the cost of even the cheapest, dirtiest power generation (coal), it's now becoming a viable idea.

Malaysia are looking to link to Australian solar production.

Saudi Arabia are looking to distribute solar power outside their borders with a $200 billion set of solar facilities.

A network of solar facilities from Morocco in the west to China in the east (or even further Australia) would cover the traditional peak energy periods, while existing renewable energy generations should be sufficient to pickup the night time lulls.

Up
0

pretty unworkable when you have to rely upon the behaviour of the ickystans and east-asian autocracies. Not to mention anything to do with Middle east or Africa.

PV is OK in low (

Up
0

Indeed .... And that is why energy rich countries like Egypt, Turkey, Iran and even the Gulf countries, who do not have to worry about oil and gas running out soon, are all building huge Nuclear Power Plants to be completed before 2025 -- Go figure.

Our bush dwelling noobs think they know better !

Up
0

And why are BP, StatOil, Mobil and almost every massive oil and gas producer researching clean technologies? Interesting bearing in mind you believe climate change is a myth, oil rich nations, oil producers, oil sellers all researching green tech or alternative sources of energy. I wonder why that is? It's almost as if they're preparing for a future without fossil fuels.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climat…

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.ht…

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

Oh look that's vested interest players with their corporate outlook, all saying scientific consensus agrees and what they're doing to mitigate their role. Interesting isn't it?

Eco-bird vs climate change scientists and corporations whose very business has been reliant on damaging the environment. Hmmmm who I should I believe?

Up
0

Let’s not forget Shell selling down 30 billion dollars of oil and gas assets.

Up
0

You have a lot of faith in the Congo. "At the beginning of 2017, $32,500 (£26,300) would buy you one tonne of cobalt. Today you’d have to fork out $81,000. Since 2016, cobalt’s price has spiked enormously, and it’s all because of batteries.

...‘Nobody will mine more nickel just to get the cobalt out.’ Ditto for copper.

Second, the cobalt supply chain is dominated by two companies, and a single country: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Canada, Australia, the Philippines and Madagascar also mine cobalt, but the DRC dwarfs them all, heaving out two-thirds of the world’s cobalt in 2017."
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/battery-builders-get-the-cobalt-blu…

Up
0

And people forget that Cobalt is an essential mineral for soil, human and animal health.....one can't eat batteries......

Up
0

wow, the desperation is palpable... mining Cobalt from the deserts of Western Australia isn't going to affect the amount of cobalt in soil in productive lands.

Up
0

C'mon Praggers - we are mining from the DRC not WA. Do you really think it is practical to have the globes transport fleet, wind farms and solar parks reliant on the DRC? Note what the price is telling us.

I hope the miners in the DRC are meeting their resource consent obligations.

Up
0

You should go look at the smallcaps on the ASX, there are several Australian operations, CLA has announced a 120,000ton Cobalt resource in Namibia. Its not just the DRC anymore. just need a few years to get them up and running. Price spike is short term like oil spikes have been in the past. Also happen to have the Tesla Q1 2018 earnings sheet open, cobalt isn't going to be so important in the long run.

"Cells used in Model 3 are the highest energy density cells used in any electric vehicle. We have achieved this by significantly reducing cobalt content per battery pack while increasing nickel content and still maintaining superior thermal stability. The cobalt content of our Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum cathode chemistry is already lower than next-generation cathodes that will be made by other cell producers"

Oh well, there goes your FUD line down the drain.

Up
0

Got it - our “transition” is reliant on some Oz small cap stocks investing in DRC’s neighbour and the world’s biggest corporate bludger. I hope you’re right.

Up
0

I disagree with the government.
Let the carbon price determine whether exploration occurs.

Up
0

"Everyone accepts climate change is happening" Really? The climate changes on a regular basis. That is the only thing society can agree on. Everything else is widely divergent opinion.

Up
0

She meant everyone who's not an idiot.

Up
0

Do you mean all the idiots who exhale 40,000 parts per million of CO2 in every breath?

Up
0

Yes I thought I might send Megan Woods an account. She is not speaking for me and has no right to speak for me so when she states "Everyone accepts climate change" like it is some fact then I surely as do others who are opposed to her biblical beliefs have the right to be financially rewarded for our loss of rights.

Up
0

With sunspot activity at current near zero levels - I wonder what these muppets will say if we have frost fairs on the Thames again ? Just as we did in the 1800's.

The oceans are absorbing the heat ? This is just a blip - the long term trend is up.

While we constantly hear of 1.x º C rise since the start of the industrial revolution which happened to coincide with the end of one of the coldest periods over the last 1000 years - it is equally accurate to state current temperatures are very similar to the medieval warm period circa 1300.

Why don't we read that - just as accurate and over a much longer tine frame so a better definition of any really long term trend.

Up
0

Because they can't tax you and make money out of statements like those.

Up
0

This CoLs must be thrown out with the bath water in 2020. they have overstayed their welcome already.

The longer they stay the more crap like the above will be shoveled down our throats sighting the L/G agreement of confidence and supply (of BS).

Up
0

Na, they can stay.

Up
0

If the Good Intentions Paving Company (2017) limited is really serious about Transitioning, it would be incentivising a number of initiatives like this:

  • Setting standards for and incentives towards implementation of swappable batteries for EV's, especially in the light and heavy truck space. Having a 5-minute swap-out of a discharged for a ready-to-roll battery is the key to getting long-haul trucking viable, and NZ is an ideal lab-rat for this sort of initiative. If it fails entirely or is a stoopid idea, the rest of the world won't miss a beat.
  • Re-negotiating Tiwai power prices with a view to acquiring the 17% of NZ total electricity it consumes for fleet/EV/'lekky trains usage. After all, if the Gubmint can foobar oil and gas exploration and condemn Taranaki to a dismal future with no real plan for a future beyond Visitors (dependent on fuel...) and Culture (oh, spare me...), it can do the same to Southland.
  • It could even build a slew more dams, which have the huge advantage over wind and solar (the Unreliables) in that the elevated water's potential energy is a) certain and b) instantly available to spin a Genny or three. After all, we currently (sorry) benefit hugely from the Think Big era in this respect, even though many of us (in the old Values Party amongst others) protested vehemently against it all. But hindsight is 20/20....

Ah, we can dream....

Up
0

Swapable batteries aren't required for trucks. You fast change them when loading/unloading.

I've no objection to more dams.

Up
0

Swappable batteries will be required for trucks, otherwise you are going to require distribution centres with multi megawatt power connections. Three trucks pull in at once, all needing to charge their 500kWh battery packs, and all are loaded an hour later at most and need to leave. Either you have a 1.5+MW power connection, or you swap the packs out in 10mins with a forklift, then hook the truck up to the preloaded trailer unit and turn the truck (and driver) around in 15minutes, and put the battery packs back in the rack to slow charge over 6 hours.

Up
0

Where is the detail this is more hot air from a stupid incompetent minister

Up
0

And no mention of fusion generation which has had such enormous cash injections that our knowledge about it is increasing faster than moore's law.

Up
0

Hasn't fusion been about 40years away for .. 70 years or so?

Up
0