Wednesday, March 21, 2018

SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY

St Jacinda's virtual signalling of her governments intention  to ban further oil and gas exploration on-shore and off-shore is a good move.    Sure, we are committed to reducing our greenhouse gas admissions but the move will have only minimal effect.

Our demand for fossil fuels is what it is and any production shortfall (and we are a net importer of energy) has to be made-up by importing it from o'seas.    Not great for the balance of payments but as St Jacinda's exposure to commerce and economics has been limited to working as an assistant in a fish and chip shop (at least Pauline Hanson owned her one) she might not understand that.

What the government can do is to encourage a switch to alternative energy sources as a means of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.   That's great in theory as long as the alternative source costs about the same as oil and gas.   If it costs more then government has three choices #1 taxpayer subsidy or #2 let the economy take the hit or #3 a combination of both.   Whatever, there is a price to pay and nobody will be exempt.

Then of course there is the small matter of the 10,000 well paid jobs likely to disappear when the industry shuts down.    Perhaps the Jones boy might be able to convince them to go and plant some of his billion trees for him but I think not.

But is was refreshing to here him in parliament yesterday when  asked to comment on his pledge to the Taranaki oil industry back in 2013 that a Labour government was absolutely committed to supporting it.    His response ..."political rhetoric isn't static" (Hansard).     At least that's being honest but it begs the question ... how many more of 'his' government's commitments are going to be consigned to the dustbin labelled political rhetoric?


27 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

With Jones, the only political rhetoric you get is static. (Noun) The crackling noisy kind.

David said...

Whatever, there is a price to pay and nobody will be exempt.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, or so I have heard it said. Yes, there will be costs in transitioning to new, cleaner fuels, but there is also a cost in the current fuel cycle.

Exploration and drilling has environmental and social costs, some we are prepared to pay and some that we'd rather not pay. Many of those costs are externalised by the exploration companies and borne by the taxpayer.

Then of course there is the small matter of the 10,000 well paid jobs likely to disappear when the industry shuts down.

And the thousands more well paid jobs that will be created with new energy technologies. You sound like one of those people who are still lamenting the closure of the last buggy whip factory.

Not great for the balance of payments but as St Jacinda's exposure to commerce and economics has been limited to working as an assistant in a fish and chip shop (at least Pauline Hanson owned her one) she might not understand that.

There is more to good government than commerce and economics, as the late, greta Bob Ellis said "Economies exist because people trade and not the other way 'round".

Electric or hydrogen cell cars are the way of the future. Yes, there are limited fueling options and limited range right now, but how many petrol stations were there when Henry Ford launched the Model T? And what was its range?

The future is coming, and just like King Canute, you cannot hold back the tides of change.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Well David it's a funny thing but you mate Weatherill just got his arse kicked in for spouting all the same bullshit you keep churning out.

David said...

Arse kicked, Adolf? I don't think so. Sure, The Slibs won, but the last redistribution left the ALP needing a 3% swing to it just to stay in the same place as the last election. The swing against was a mere 2%, a pretty good result for a government that had been in office for 16 years.

The Slibs began with a 3% swing to them due to the redistribution and suffered a 7% swing against them, hardly an overwhelming vote of confidence.

In the Legislative Council the Libs have 31.5% of the vote to Labor's 29.5%, so again, no ringing endorsement.

And your arguments against renewables are as full of shit as Tony Abbott's.

A South Australian energy poll shows a majority of South Australians think the rest of the country should join the state in switching to renewable energy and storage.

A clear majority of respondents (62.2%) thought Australia should switch to solar and wind, plus storage, as the main source of energy within the next 10 years.


Seems us South Aussies just can't get enough clean green energy.

Marshall is also continuing Labor's renewables policy.

Maybe you should stick to lawn mowing and leave energy policy to those of us who know something about the subject.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Just keep paying David. Just keep paying.

The Veteran said...

David ... I agree there is no such thing as a free lunch and that was my point. There is also the little matter of the political rhetoric bullshit admission by Jones but, as he is a government minister in a Labour led government, I guess it doesn't count.

Electric cars are great for city usage but not so great if you're traveling any sort of distance. They are expensive although the cost will come down over time. The lithium-ion battery is however very energy-intensive. A 100kWh battery takes around 20 tonnes of CO2 to produce .

Having just invested in a new SUV I won't be in the market again for a number of years but, next time round, I will certainly look at replacing it with an electric vehicle if it all stacks up. Great that I'm in a position to do so. Not so great for those on the average income.

Suggest you butt out of the South Australian election debate given your prediction that your mob were on track to win a fifth straight term.

Anonymous said...

Veteran......61,000,000 people in the UK and last week, one of the coldest of the year, 37% of power was generated by wind. Ten years ago it was 8%.
Solar fed in another 6% but it would be a lot more than that as millions of panels are not connected to the grid and feed power directly to houses.

NZ has more wind and much more sun than than the UK so the PM is making the right call for the future. The experimental hard yards have been done and costings of payback times are accurate. Do the opposite of Trump and remove taxes/tariffs on solar panels even a small subsidy perhaps and watch your power problems disappear.

The French farmers are offered a subsidy to erect them on new build barns. There are a couple near me with 300 south facing panels each on them and the switchboard is the size of a caravan.

Walter...Commiserations on your "uncles" passing. One hopes that the longevity gene is not inherited.

Lord Egbut

The Bunbury Baker said...

If you walk into a room and you know you're going to kill someone, it's a first degree murder. I think it's the same thing with the oil companies... [They] knew from 1959 on... that there would be global warming... that it would be risky for people's lives, that it would kill...We're going to go after them... This is no different from the smoking issue.

— former CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on intended lawsuit

Psycho Milt said...

What the government can do is to encourage a switch to alternative energy sources as a means of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. That's great in theory as long as the alternative source costs about the same as oil and gas. If it costs more then government has three choices #1 taxpayer subsidy or #2 let the economy take the hit or #3 a combination of both. Whatever, there is a price to pay and nobody will be exempt.

Given that the oil and gas industries receive a colossal subsidy in the form of pushing the environmental costs of fossil fuel usage onto future generations, it's inconceivable that sustainable energy could be provided for the same prices. The question is when we'll get a government that's both willing to admit that, and willing to force the transition to sustainable energy regardless. The last government proved itself utterly unwilling even to acknowledge the problem, let alone do something about it, and history won't be kind to that government. Let's hope the current one is made of sterner stuff.

Andrei said...

Given that the oil and gas industries receive a colossal subsidy in the form of pushing the environmental costs of fossil fuel usage onto future generations, it's inconceivable that sustainable energy could be provided for the same prices.

"Sustainable energy" is a slogan PM and there are no ways of producing energy is the quantities required to "sustain" our standard of living and quality of life that do not have an "environmental impact" and at this point in human history there are only two viable options that are economic - fossil fuels and nuclear. Hydro electric is viable if you have lots of water but don't tell me there is no enviromental impact with hydro electric because there is big time

If you want to live a 16th century lifestyle with all that entails (life expectancy of 40, half the children born dying before their fifth birthday &c.) be my guest but don't inflict your insanity upon the rest of us

Anonymous said...

Andrei....Obviously you are having trouble reading my post. Your problem is that Russia is sitting on a thousand years of gas and oil in Siberia and it what might be called Russia's pension pot. So it is part of Russia's troll factories job to introduce elements of doubt and generally diss the idea of renewables.

Unfortunately as time goes by the gas deposits are losing their value and relevance and any chance of using it as leverage in future negotiations is disappearing.

http://time.com/china-massive-floating-solar-field/

https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/french-wind-and-hydro-power-output-hit-new-highs-in-january-rte/63119752

In ten years the UKs nuclear plants will be working on tickover and acting as backup to wind, tide and solar....get used to it or become a luddite.

Lord Egbut

Andrei said...

Egbut I wasn't commenting on your post

But Nuclear power is most economic if the reactors are run at capacity all the time and thus are the most economomic solution to providing the baseload of a power system

For demands exceeding the baseload other types of generation need to be deployed

Wind and solar power are most effective when mother nature dictates and there is limited control over when they produce efeectively which might not correlate to times of peak demand

Hydro and fossil fuel power generators can be brought online as needs dictate

As for electric vehicles can anyone tell me where all the electricity to power them is going to come from?

Of course today ordinary motorists are subsidizing electric cars because they don't pay road user charges but when we have a significant fleet of electric vehicles rhat will have to change and new power stations will have to be built

And of course Wellington has just axed its trolley bus fleet and moved to, wait for it, buses fueld by fossil fuels, deisel probably the dirtiest fuel around

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Fantasists Legbut and PM have never lived in South Australia.

Gerald said...

I believe that future options have already been pointed out to a cross party group.
https://www.sbc.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/124075/Net-Zero-in-NZ-Summary-Report-Vivid.pdf
Given 75 percent of our energy needs, other than motor vehicles, is sourced from Hyro and geothermal with small oil and gas sources in the future having to compete with increasing wind and solar sources.
Any benefit from future exploration would I presume be to reduce the amount of imported fuels for transportation.
If eventual electrification of much of that fleet is a chosen option for carbon reduction then that demand would reduce the need for further exploration.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Gerald

How much coal and oil are you going to burn to get all that luvverley 'clean' electricity?

Psycho Milt said...

"Sustainable energy" is a slogan PM and there are no ways of producing energy is the quantities required to "sustain" our standard of living and quality of life that do not have an "environmental impact" and at this point in human history there are only two viable options that are economic - fossil fuels and nuclear. Hydro electric is viable if you have lots of water but don't tell me there is no enviromental impact with hydro electric because there is big time

The perfect is the enemy of the good. If we decide that fossil fuels must form our main energy source until an energy source with zero environmental impact is found, runaway global warming and a mass extinction that could include humans will be the result. We don't need "full sustainability" right now, we just need "less unsustainable." Stopping further oil and gas exploration is a no-brainer from a "let's not make ourselves extinct" perspective, which is why many of us were so furious at the previous government's mendacity about climate change. And I note that one of the more mendacious of that government's ministers is now leading the National Party.

Gerald said...

How much coal
Don't be a goofball Adolf. Ships are not used to hunt for coal deposits.

Andrei said...

"If we decide that fossil fuels must form our main energy source until an energy source with zero environmental impact is found, runaway global warming and a mass extinction that could include humans will be the result. "

That is a religious belief not a scientific assesment Milt

CO² is a trace element in the atmosphere but it is vital to life om earth as we know it

Remove the CO² from the atmosphere and I can assure you life as we know it will become extinct! Atmospheric CO² allows photosynthesising organisms to store energy from sunlight and it is this stored energy that powers life on Earth

But as we know the vast majority of politicians are scientific illiterates and 100% of the Green party are. They are people driven by ideology and ideologues are the people whp repsent the most danger to humanity - whether they be Greens or Free market capitalists

We need common sense pragmatists in parliament - alas they are a rare beast

Noel said...

For Adolf.
Two generation systems use coal in New Zealand.
Huntly producing 500mw
Genbrook cogen plant us gas from steel making which used coal in the manufacturing process.
Produces around 112mw.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Noel

Thank you. You've made my point.

Psycho Milt said...

Andrei: I get there are still plenty of people out there who'd like to pretend this isn't happening, but unfortunately it is happening and we need governments to take it seriously. And the voters know this - you'll note that National hides its climate-change denial now and pays lip service to combatting it, and they do that because they know stating their real views would be voter repellent.

Look on the bright side: even in the wildly unlikely event that the world's scientists are wrong and the world's grumpy old right-wingers are right, the worst-case outcome of phasing out fossil fuel use is that we get a less-polluted environment.

Andrei said...

PM Climate change "science" is the Western world's equivalent of Lysenkoism (Лысе́нковщина)

The parallels are striking

David said...

Andrei, the only striking parallel is your willful ignorance.

Lysenkoism was political; scientists sacked, jailed, executed for opposing it. Lysenkoism went against the accepted science of Mendelian, and Darwinian theory. We know roughly how many scientists Stalin executed in his support of Lysenko. Now, you tell us how many scientists have been executed for their studies in climatology.

Climate science follows the generally accepted scientific principles of hypothesis, testing, theory, testing, revision (if necessary) and is always open to correction as knowledge improves. How does that in any way akin to Lysenkoism?

Lysenkoism has far more in common with "creation science"; first determine the result and then massage opinions as fact to get the desired result.

And its not just the "western world" that accepts climate science; the Asians and even the Russians think you're FOS.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

"Climate science follows the generally accepted scientific principles of hypothesis, testing, theory, testing, revision (if necessary) and is always open to correction as knowledge improves."

David

For that little gem you get the 'Hide The Decline" award with horse shit clusters.

David said...

Sorry Adolf, nice try, but no banana. I'll get my science from scientists, not ignoramuses who think they can "know" things without doing the research. It's no wonder Trump is such a nice fit for you.

Now, here's a challenge - explain "Hide the Decline", because I bet you bought the bullshit, not the facts.

Psycho Milt said...

Our thoughts on the merits or otherwise of current scientific thinking on the climate is completely irrelevant.

The current government is committed to phasing out fossil fuels, and the current Opposition is committed to at least pretending to think the same because its real view is voter repellent. That being the case, the first thing that has to go is scouting for new fossil fuel extraction opportunities, it's a no-brainer.

Ardern's probably shitting herself at having to make that happen, but Labour governments always have to do the hard yards after National kicks the can down the road for its entire term of government, so she'll be up to the job. National will snipe at them from the sidelines but will be hamstrung by the need to avoid being voter repellent. Actual state of the climate is of academic interest only.

Anonymous said...

So the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine and we will be cast into the outer darkness ...utter bollocks. Wind farms like solar are scattered all around the country it is always windy somewhere and in NZ the sun is always shining somewhere.

If nearly 50% of 61,000,000 peoples power needs are met by renewables then I really don't see a problem for NZ. What I didn't mention is storage. 1.1% of the UK power was from storage. This is in it's infancy at the moment Re: the Musk Battery in SA Technology is advancing so fast it is difficult to keep up.

Lord Egbut