This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regardingWhat an idiot you are. Jones is doing his job, that simple. We elected him to do that.
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The far lower risk path would be to try and reduce our reliance on gas
as much and as fast as possible to make our known reserves last longer
for critical applications such as operating peaking power plants, etc.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, David Badlose <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
The far lower risk path would be to try and reduce our reliance on gas
as much and as fast as possible to make our known reserves last longer
for critical applications such as operating peaking power plants, etc.
BadLose opts for mud huts. Bad Loser.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, David Badlose <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
The far lower risk path would be to try and reduce our reliance on gas
as much and as fast as possible to make our known reserves last longer
for critical applications such as operating peaking power plants, etc.
BadLose opts for mud huts. Bad Loser.
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
In article <6668ee7f.1117198000@news.bbs.nz>, wn@nosuch.com says...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, David Badlose <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
BadLose opts for mud huts. Bad Loser.
I'm sure we can, if we try hard enough, muster the strength to behave
like adults here. Rather than resorting to name calling like you're in a
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:44:15 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:Do you really not understand simple concepts or are you being sarcastic again?
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, David Badlose <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:what are you trying to say, Nil Willy?
The far lower risk path would be to try and reduce our reliance on gas
as much and as fast as possible to make our known reserves last longer >>>for critical applications such as operating peaking power plants, etc.
BadLose opts for mud huts. Bad Loser.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <6668ee7f.1117198000@news.bbs.nz>, wn@nosuch.com says...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, David Badlose <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
BadLose opts for mud huts. Bad Loser.
I'm sure we can, if we try hard enough, muster the strength to behave
like adults here. Rather than resorting to name calling like you're in a
I'm mocking your fake name "Goodwin". You are pretending that that's
your name, but it isn't. I'm not pretending my name is real, so I'm
entitled to mock your pretension.
But as I did once before, I'll give you a clue. Have you heard of the "greening of the Earth"? It's a response of plants to today's
increased CO2 in the air -- they can grow more. Did you know they
were at CO2 starvation level back when CO2 was only 280ppm? Now that
the level is higher, plants are spreading into the Sahara and growing
more freely elsewhere.
So how is it that the CO2 level became so low when geologically the
level used to be much higher? It's because of grass, the modern
version of which is a relatively new plant form. Grass is actually
more intensively photosynthetic than any other land plant form -- when
they say plant a tree, it's actually not as oxygen-productive as the equivalent land area in grass.
Mind you, most photosynthesis happens in the oceans, but grass has
tipped the balance to CO2 starvation. Anything to do with the ice
ages? Maybe. Your climate dickheads still can't explain the ice
ages, even as they pontificate about our future climate. So your
concern about gas exploration is badly founded as all your other
beliefs which would, if followed, result in our ending up in mud huts
once again. Bad Lose.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding >offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea. >Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly >>dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea. >>Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >>reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance
on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems -
but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high
winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a
whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already
have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for
short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better
profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved
by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some
of their own power
We do not know for certain that there will be any further economically
viable gas discoveries in New Zealand. Therefore, it is risky to rely on
this for our future energy security.
It would be safer to start slowly reducing our reliance on gas now as
this would allow our existing gas reserves to last longer in the event
no more is found while making it easier to transition away from it
entirely when the time comes.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
We do not know for certain that there will be any further economically >viable gas discoveries in New Zealand. Therefore, it is risky to rely on >this for our future energy security.
You are equating searching with relying?!? What weird thinking.
It would be safer to start slowly reducing our reliance on gas now as
this would allow our existing gas reserves to last longer in the event
no more is found while making it easier to transition away from it
entirely when the time comes.
"Safer"?!? Your mama's tit! Mud huts! Bad Lose.
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be >>> >seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to >>annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly >>dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea. >>Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >>reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance
on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems -
but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high
winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already
have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved
by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some
of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered.
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather
over the country.
In article <lcuja6Fs4miU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nzI agree - with suburbs in particular causing a lot of our water issues
says...
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be >> >>> >seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >> >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven
reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance
on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems -
but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across
Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has
just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil >> that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high
winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a
whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already
have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for
short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better
profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved
by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some
of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered.
Yeah, this is really something we need to do much better with. Too much
of our best farmland has already disappeared under suburbs and lifestyle >blocks.
The agrivoltaics term is interesting; turns out some crops grow better
in a bit of shade. So, you get higher productivity and/or better quality
with bonus electricity generation. Though perhaps the benefits here
would be less dramatic than, e.g., Africa where heat stress is no doubt
much higher.
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather
over the country.
We're lucky to have loads of generation that can respond quickly (hydro, >gas). A glut of solar power would ideally allow us to save those
generation resources for the night which may help a little with the "dry >year" problem. Use the hydro plants as a kind of battery.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:29:50 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <lcuja6Fs4miU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
says...
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >> >>says...I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >> >>> wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding >> >>> >offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should >> >>> be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >> >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven
reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally. >> >
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance >> > on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems - >> > but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across >> > Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has >> just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil
that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high
winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a >> > whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already
have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for >> > short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better
profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved
by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some >> > of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered.
Yeah, this is really something we need to do much better with. Too muchI agree - with suburbs in particular causing a lot of our water issues
of our best farmland has already disappeared under suburbs and lifestyle >blocks.
- the encouragement of intensification has helped a little.
The agrivoltaics term is interesting; turns out some crops grow better
in a bit of shade. So, you get higher productivity and/or better quality >with bonus electricity generation. Though perhaps the benefits here
would be less dramatic than, e.g., Africa where heat stress is no doubt >much higher.
There are some Wind generation projects still under way (with some
resistance from NIMBY life-stylers) - see https://www.windenergy.org.nz/consented-likely-wind-farms
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather >> over the country.
We're lucky to have loads of generation that can respond quickly (hydro, >gas). A glut of solar power would ideally allow us to save those
generation resources for the night which may help a little with the "dry >year" problem. Use the hydro plants as a kind of battery.
Exactly, but with the reducing costs of solar panels, there should be advantages in putting solar generation on all large roof areas,
including schools and houses. Again the link to distribution needs to
treat both distributors and generating households / businesses fairly
- currently buying solar panels appears to be discouraged for smaller
sites at least by many feeling that they are being penalised but the difference between purchase and sale price of electricity.
I suspect
there is little penalty to genesis from 'brinkmanship' that leads to occasional firing up of Huntly.
In article <rbjk6jl0jeeq0o5fbqq3dsbk9vlj3g7cvt@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >@hotmail.com says...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:29:50 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <lcuja6Fs4miU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nzI agree - with suburbs in particular causing a lot of our water issues
says...
Yeah, this is really something we need to do much better with. Too much
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >> >> >>says...I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >> >> >>> wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding >> >> >>> >offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that >> >> >>> >take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should >> >> >>> be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it
takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >> >> >>reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally. >> >> >
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance >> >> > on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems - >> >> > but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across >> >> > Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has >> >> just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil
that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high >> >> > winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a >> >> > whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already >> >> > have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for >> >> > short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better >> >> > profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved >> >> > by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some >> >> > of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered. >> >
of our best farmland has already disappeared under suburbs and lifestyle
blocks.
- the encouragement of intensification has helped a little.
The agrivoltaics term is interesting; turns out some crops grow better
in a bit of shade. So, you get higher productivity and/or better quality
with bonus electricity generation. Though perhaps the benefits here
would be less dramatic than, e.g., Africa where heat stress is no doubt
much higher.
There are some Wind generation projects still under way (with some
resistance from NIMBY life-stylers) - see
https://www.windenergy.org.nz/consented-likely-wind-farms
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather >> >> over the country.
We're lucky to have loads of generation that can respond quickly (hydro,
gas). A glut of solar power would ideally allow us to save those
generation resources for the night which may help a little with the "dry
year" problem. Use the hydro plants as a kind of battery.
Exactly, but with the reducing costs of solar panels, there should be
advantages in putting solar generation on all large roof areas,
including schools and houses. Again the link to distribution needs to
treat both distributors and generating households / businesses fairly
- currently buying solar panels appears to be discouraged for smaller
sites at least by many feeling that they are being penalised but the
difference between purchase and sale price of electricity.
The challenge there is that when you're paying for electricity, you're >usually not paying the actual cost of the electricity at that point in
time. The cost of varies through the day based on demand and you're just >paying something closer to the average plus a profit margin and a bit
for line maintenance costs.
And the average cost for electricity over a 24h period is going to be
much higher than the average cost of power during a sunny day when
demand is low. So, the amount you pay for power will always be higher
than the amount you receive for solar generation.
I suspect
there is little penalty to genesis from 'brinkmanship' that leads to
occasional firing up of Huntly.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
Bill.
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea. >Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
In article <lcuja6Fs4miU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
says...
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be >> >>> >seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >> >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven
reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance
on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems -
but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across
Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has
just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil >> that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high
winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a
whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already
have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for
short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better
profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved
by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some
of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered.
Yeah, this is really something we need to do much better with. Too much
of our best farmland has already disappeared under suburbs and lifestyle >blocks.
The agrivoltaics term is interesting; turns out some crops grow better
in a bit of shade. So, you get higher productivity and/or better quality
with bonus electricity generation. Though perhaps the benefits here
would be less dramatic than, e.g., Africa where heat stress is no doubt
much higher.
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather
over the country.
We're lucky to have loads of generation that can respond quickly (hydro, >gas). A glut of solar power would ideally allow us to save those
generation resources for the night which may help a little with the "dry >year" problem. Use the hydro plants as a kind of battery.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <lcuja6Fs4miU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
says...
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>> >>says...I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>> >>> wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding >>> >>> >offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be >>> >>> >seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should >>> >>> be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >>> >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven
reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally. >>> >
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance >>> > on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems - >>> > but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across >>> > Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has >>> just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil >>> that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high
winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a >>> > whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already
have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for >>> > short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better
profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved
by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some >>> > of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered.
Yeah, this is really something we need to do much better with. Too much
of our best farmland has already disappeared under suburbs and lifestyle >>blocks.
The agrivoltaics term is interesting; turns out some crops grow better
in a bit of shade. So, you get higher productivity and/or better quality >>with bonus electricity generation. Though perhaps the benefits here
would be less dramatic than, e.g., Africa where heat stress is no doubt >>much higher.
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather >>> over the country.
We're lucky to have loads of generation that can respond quickly (hydro, >>gas). A glut of solar power would ideally allow us to save those
generation resources for the night which may help a little with the "dry >>year" problem. Use the hydro plants as a kind of battery.
Loads or electricity??. Don't make me laugh. If that was the case
why the dire warnings this winter about turning things off to prevent >blackouts.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly >>dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea. >>Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >>reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
They could pull out of NZ or shut down the storage facilities at
Marsden Point.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:06:57 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be >>>> >seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to >>>annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >>>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly >>>dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea. >>>Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >>>reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
They could pull out of NZ or shut down the storage facilities at
Marsden Point.
Why would they want to provided we pay whatever is asked? Are there
storage facilities still at Marsden Point?
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>says...
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding
offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should
be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly >>dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea. >>Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >>reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally.
They could pull out of NZ or shut down the storage facilities at
Marsden Point.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:08:57 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>No proof of that slur I see. So a lie then.
wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <lcuja6Fs4miU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
says...
Yeah, this is really something we need to do much better with. Too much >>>of our best farmland has already disappeared under suburbs and lifestyle >>>blocks.
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>> >>says...I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on >>>> > Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>> >>> wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding >>>> >>> >offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that >>>> >>> >take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should >>>> >>> be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to >>>> >>annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >>>> >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven >>>> >>reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally. >>>> >
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance >>>> > on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems - >>>> > but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across >>>> > Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but >>>> > that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has >>>> just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil
that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high >>>> > winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a >>>> > whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already >>>> > have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having >>>> > an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for >>>> > short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better >>>> > profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved >>>> > by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity, >>>> > and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some >>>> > of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered. >>>
The agrivoltaics term is interesting; turns out some crops grow better
in a bit of shade. So, you get higher productivity and/or better quality >>>with bonus electricity generation. Though perhaps the benefits here
would be less dramatic than, e.g., Africa where heat stress is no doubt >>>much higher.
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather >>>> over the country.
We're lucky to have loads of generation that can respond quickly (hydro, >>>gas). A glut of solar power would ideally allow us to save those >>>generation resources for the night which may help a little with the "dry >>>year" problem. Use the hydro plants as a kind of battery.
Loads or electricity??. Don't make me laugh. If that was the case
why the dire warnings this winter about turning things off to prevent >>blackouts.
Because the generating companies make more profits by getting the spot
price to climb when a shortage forces them to fire up Huntly . . .
Hence the number of consented projects to increase wind power that
have not yet started - why build capacity that will bring the price of >electricity down?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 04:13:13 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Wow you really are a child. Do your parents know you have hacked into thir laptops?
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
Bill.
BR, nz.general is a multi-threaded discussion group - between your
post above and the post you appear to be responding to there are 15
other posts, with eight of those having the same Subject - while easy
enough to find the post you quote from the date and time, not everyone
may bother given the meagre actual content you have given in your post
above.
So why do you ask, BR? Have you done the sums? And there are
considerations other than those that can be determined by "sums?"
The answer was given in the post you refer to - a link that clearly
sets out the issues.
There is one poster that makes a habit of deleting previous posts - it
is usually clear that he does that to avoid either posts that prove
that he is wrong, or where he does not understand the post that he is >responding to, or, perhaps most often, because he does not generally
have the ability to understand what others have posted.
In this case, if you read the link on the post you are replying to,YUou really hate smart people like Bill, don't you? You are no match for intelligence.
and previous posts in the thread leading to the post by David Goodwin,
I am sure you will understand why he made the comment he did - quite
simply electrification is the best option we have for nearly all our
energy needs.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <lcuja6Fs4miU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon@leaf.net.nz
says...
On 2024-06-12, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <mhdi6jlvga7jgpdj0tjgajc2gpir3n70u2@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >> >>says...I was driving home just a short while ago and listened to an item on
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >> >>> wrote:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2024/06/gordon-campbell-on-our-doomed-love-affair-with-oil-and-gas/
This article gives not quite the same story as Shane Jones regarding >> >>> >offshore drilling.
But perhaps Jones knows some of these views, and is just wanting to be
seen as "on the side of industry and big companies" - knowing that
take-up for some of the extreme events may never happen.
The oil companies are the very companies that all governments should >> >>> be trying very hard not to annoy because all our lives, including
yours, depend on them.
Short of attacking their ships I don't think it would be possible to
annoy oil companies enough to threaten our energy security. They're
after money and they've well proven at this point they'll do whatever it >> >>takes to make more of it.
But you do raise a good point though. Our energy security is overly
dependent on a few companies/countries shipping stuff to us by sea.
Electrification is the only real solution to this though - our proven
reserves are tiny, and we've never had any way of refining it locally. >> >
Radio NZ about Sport and Politicks - it made the point that Saudi
Arabia are using sport as one way to try and diversify from a reliance >> > on oil - they are encouraging tourism, and also using sport to
encourage their citizens to exercise more and reduce health problems - >> > but the major effect is that Saudi money is purchasing property across >> > Europe, and they own significant parts of many organisations and
industries. The world needs to move away from oil use - many years
ago we were expecting to meet "peak oil" - it is not talked about
much any more because the USA discovered fracking and shale oil, but
that is now starting to reduce.
The concept of Peal Oil is still valid. The introduction of shale oil has >> just kicked the big event along the time line and making the decline of oil
that much faster.
Drilling at sea has a lot of problems, quite apart from the large
number of empty wells, there is the problem of the high cost
(especially with less reliable weather and given our exposure to high
winds and earthquakes), and that includes the cost of breaking down
wells and giving up - I believe that some years ago one company left a >> > whole lot of a platform out in the sea where it was a danger to
shipping and New Zealand had to pay to take it out.
Solar power is getting cheaper, and there are wind sites that already
have resource consent, but the generating companies have little
incentive to undertake more generation as keeping us close to having
an incident when we have brown-outs or black-outs (or burning coal for >> > short term supply) keeps the price of electricity high to give better
profits to the companies involved - but perhaps that will be resolved
by more and more New Zealanders moving away from gas to electricity,
and also using solar panels which are getting cheaper to generate some >> > of their own power
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350307775/newsable-plans-double-nzs-solar-power-can-valuable-farmland-be-protected
An interesting article in case you have not seen it.
Good to see that the question of damaging farmland is being considered.
Yeah, this is really something we need to do much better with. Too much
of our best farmland has already disappeared under suburbs and lifestyle >blocks.
The agrivoltaics term is interesting; turns out some crops grow better
in a bit of shade. So, you get higher productivity and/or better quality >with bonus electricity generation. Though perhaps the benefits here
would be less dramatic than, e.g., Africa where heat stress is no doubt >much higher.
also
it looks like we might have a power glut during the days of fine weather >> over the country.
We're lucky to have loads of generation that can respond quickly (hydro, >gas). A glut of solar power would ideally allow us to save those
generation resources for the night which may help a little with the "dry >year" problem. Use the hydro plants as a kind of battery.
Loads or electricity??. Don't make me laugh. If that was the case
why the dire warnings this winter about turning things off to prevent blackouts.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
In article <rg6m6jlln9h8da4lt0ol7jt06lh78hdk6b@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
IIRC our proven oil reserves are enough to meet our current demand for
around two years. And even when we had our own refinery, we were
incapable of refining our own oil - the Marsden Pt refinery wasn't built
for it probably because we didn't have enough to be worthwhile.
So, our choices would appear to be either:
A) Use imported fuel with all the geopolitical and climate risk
that
comes with it. It's a commodity so we'll always be subject to
global prices unless we're willing to use tax dollars to subsidise
it.
B) Use electricity we generate ourselves. When supply is limited we
can build more generation capacity or storage. Stuff happening in
the rest of the world is unlikely to significantly impact our
electricity generation or power cost unless we're physically
invaded.
From an energy security standpoint, electricity seems to be the least
likely to suffer supply disruptions and price swings due to events
outside our control.
I guess we could go down the synthetic fuel path, but the costs will be >higher than importing fuel and from a Total Cost of Ownership
perspective electric is already the cheapest option for many/most users >assuming proper selection of battery size, etc.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 04:13:13 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
Bill.
So why do you ask, BR? Have you done the sums? And there are
considerations other than those that can be determined by "sums?"
The answer was given in the post you refer to - a link that clearly
sets out the issues.
There is one poster that makes a habit of deleting previous posts - it
is usually clear that he does that to avoid either posts that prove
that he is wrong, or where he does not understand the post that he is >responding to, or, perhaps most often, because he does not generally
have the ability to understand what others have posted.
I am sure you will understand why he made the comment he did
- quite
simply electrification is the best option we have for nearly all our
energy needs.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:31:07 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <rg6m6jlln9h8da4lt0ol7jt06lh78hdk6b@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
IIRC our proven oil reserves are enough to meet our current demand for >around two years. And even when we had our own refinery, we were
incapable of refining our own oil - the Marsden Pt refinery wasn't built >for it probably because we didn't have enough to be worthwhile.
So, our choices would appear to be either:
A) Use imported fuel with all the geopolitical and climate risk
What climate risk?
that
comes with it. It's a commodity so we'll always be subject to
global prices unless we're willing to use tax dollars to subsidise
it.
B) Use electricity we generate ourselves. When supply is limited we
can build more generation capacity or storage. Stuff happening in
the rest of the world is unlikely to significantly impact our
electricity generation or power cost unless we're physically
invaded.
From an energy security standpoint, electricity seems to be the least >likely to suffer supply disruptions and price swings due to events
outside our control.
I guess we could go down the synthetic fuel path, but the costs will be >higher than importing fuel and from a Total Cost of Ownership
perspective electric is already the cheapest option for many/most users >assuming proper selection of battery size, etc.
How about coal? NZ has plenty of the stuff which can be converted to
petrol and other fuels by pyrolysis and liquefaction.
Do you have any sort of engineering background?
It would seem that there are not many people who understand the
percentage of a country's energy requirements that come from
elecricity generation compared with the energy provided by hydrocarbon
fuels. The electricity percentage is miniscule. The grid can barely
cope now, and it's going to get worse if enough people are foolish
enough to abandon their petrol and diesel vehicles for battery powered conveyances.
How much extra grid and generating capacity do you think would be
required to plug the hole left by petrol, diesel and natural gas
should these thing go missing? The amount of copper required just for transmission would be staggering.
Your response doesn't seem to follow on from what I wrote at all. I canLooks like Lawrence D'Oliveiro has had a name change.
only assume you stopped reading after the first word and composed your
reply based on what you *assumed* I was saying.
For your benefit I'll repeat what I said but I'll word it differently in
case it helps.
A significant amount of our current generation can vary its output at
short notice. A hydro power station or gas turbine generator can go from >complete cold shutdown to 100% in a matter of minutes, and they can when >running vary their output as needed quite rapidly. Unlike a Coal power
plant which may take a few hours to get from cold shutdown to 100%
output.
This means that if we *ADD* a significant amount of *NEW* solar
generation, we can reduce the amount of power generated by hydro and gas >during day light hours and instead save that water and gas for when the
sun isn't shining.
We can effectively use our hydro plants as a kind of battery to help
with the variable nature of solar.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Your response doesn't seem to follow on from what I wrote at all. I can >only assume you stopped reading after the first word and composed your >reply based on what you *assumed* I was saying.
For your benefit I'll repeat what I said but I'll word it differently in >case it helps.
A significant amount of our current generation can vary its output at
short notice. A hydro power station or gas turbine generator can go from >complete cold shutdown to 100% in a matter of minutes, and they can when >running vary their output as needed quite rapidly. Unlike a Coal power >plant which may take a few hours to get from cold shutdown to 100%
output.
This means that if we *ADD* a significant amount of *NEW* solar
generation, we can reduce the amount of power generated by hydro and gas >during day light hours and instead save that water and gas for when the
sun isn't shining.
We can effectively use our hydro plants as a kind of battery to helpLooks like Lawrence D'Oliveiro has had a name change.
with the variable nature of solar.
In article <50lr6jt99sj7lasddgijmdjvn7aa4g3lr1@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:31:07 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <rg6m6jlln9h8da4lt0ol7jt06lh78hdk6b@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah
says...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:39 +1200, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Electrification is the only real solution to this though -
Are you sure about that? Have you done the sums?
IIRC our proven oil reserves are enough to meet our current demand for
around two years. And even when we had our own refinery, we were
incapable of refining our own oil - the Marsden Pt refinery wasn't built
for it probably because we didn't have enough to be worthwhile.
So, our choices would appear to be either:
A) Use imported fuel with all the geopolitical and climate risk
What climate risk?
Storms which delay shipments or damage coastal infrastructure either
here or in the countries we source our fuel from.
that
comes with it. It's a commodity so we'll always be subject to
global prices unless we're willing to use tax dollars to subsidise
it.
B) Use electricity we generate ourselves. When supply is limited we
can build more generation capacity or storage. Stuff happening in
the rest of the world is unlikely to significantly impact our
electricity generation or power cost unless we're physically
invaded.
From an energy security standpoint, electricity seems to be the least
likely to suffer supply disruptions and price swings due to events
outside our control.
I guess we could go down the synthetic fuel path, but the costs will be
higher than importing fuel and from a Total Cost of Ownership
perspective electric is already the cheapest option for many/most users
assuming proper selection of battery size, etc.
How about coal? NZ has plenty of the stuff which can be converted to
petrol and other fuels by pyrolysis and liquefaction.
We did do this with Gas at one point (the Motunui synthetic petrol
plant). And there is a reason we don't do it anymore: cost.
Imported fuel is cheaper. Given a choice, people will choose to buy
imported fuel over synthetic fuel. As a result, a synthetic fuel
industry will not survive here unless we are willing to subsidise it.
Additionally, most of the coal we're mining now is higher-grade stuff >typically sold to steel mills, etc. Using premium coal will raise the
cost of synthetic fuel further requiring an even larger subsidy.
Given unsubsidised petrol is already more expensive in most cases than >electric, subsidising synthetic fuel is likely to have a very poor ROI.
Do you have any sort of engineering background?
It would seem that there are not many people who understand the
percentage of a country's energy requirements that come from
elecricity generation compared with the energy provided by hydrocarbon
fuels. The electricity percentage is miniscule. The grid can barely
cope now, and it's going to get worse if enough people are foolish
enough to abandon their petrol and diesel vehicles for battery powered
conveyances.
How much extra grid and generating capacity do you think would be
required to plug the hole left by petrol, diesel and natural gas
should these thing go missing? The amount of copper required just for
transmission would be staggering.
Not as much as you might think. A typical ICE car is only around 20-40% >efficient. Up to 80% of the fuel you put in is wasted as heat and noise.
EVs tend to be around 70-80% efficient. So, we don't need to replace
*all* of the chemical energy we're importing with electricity - we only
need to replace the 20-40% of it that's being used to do useful work.
Based on figures I could find for 2020 (a year that was impacted by
covid, so not ideal), transitioning the fleet to EVs would require about
82% of the electricity we generated that year. Quite a lot, but not an >unrealistic amount of additional generation to add over the space of a
decade or two.
It's also worth remembering that the grid currently struggles with
yearly peak demand - a few hours in the evening on the coldest days of
the year. The rest of the time its fine. Encouraging people to charge
their vehicles outside the evening peak (which many already do due to >discounts provided by their power retailer) would reduce the amount of >investment required for transmission and generation a bit.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:34:11 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,205 |