tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post6299186141338257986..comments2024-03-29T11:07:51.893+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: Take Back Your Power! What A Real Labour-Green Government Might Do To Combat Climate Change.Chris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-83484280876012875722021-08-18T22:04:41.537+12:002021-08-18T22:04:41.537+12:00Do you remember how the German MMP leaders lasted ...Do you remember how the German MMP leaders lasted for many years? Is that German or MMP? Lets find out. Is Vicki Buck at 65 our Angela Merkel? Adenauer was surely older. And we need her as much. If we call her she will come. sumsuchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03133092096534660472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-50382509937811735192021-08-15T10:16:03.599+12:002021-08-15T10:16:03.599+12:00David George, it is useful to recognise empirical ...David George, it is useful to recognise empirical facts that you quote about our energy supply. The 60 percent non renewable will get used and go away. But it wont be replaced by renewable hydro power because we dont have any more catchments left to plunder. Even those have a finite life due to sedimentation. We have a problem Houston. Step one is to recognise it and get over technonarcicist solutions like electric cars. Nick Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609312325425361413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-19171383478317919232021-08-14T10:37:12.944+12:002021-08-14T10:37:12.944+12:00The challenges of ending fossil fuel use are massi...The challenges of ending fossil fuel use are massive, unsurprisingly the "lets do this" types are completely unaware of what's involved.<br />Sixty percent of our energy is from fossil fuels, forty percent is from renewables like hydro.<br /><br />Even allowing (hoping really) for a significant improvement in efficiency and moderation of overall energy consumption of, say, 20%; re-tooling our transport fleet, industry, agriculture and homes to 100% renewable electricity would require more than a doubling of renewable power generation and distribution. And some significant developments and discoveries of scalable new technologies. Never mind that and the distribution issue - Cook straight in particular, we'd need hundreds of new medium sized generation facilities or twenty projects the size of the Clyde dam. A project that takes all the waters from Wakatipu, Wanaka, Hawea and upper Clutha catchments and took twenty years to design, consent and build. <br /><br />Where is the actual plan for all of this? Is the unbelievably stupid "let's do this" incantation the extent of it?David Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04883628159193125307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-78221193571932054822021-08-13T21:41:55.242+12:002021-08-13T21:41:55.242+12:00@Jennie Mae
Not to mention that their funders are...@Jennie Mae<br /><br />Not to mention that their funders are a who's who of Silicon Valley. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-19474398536256985552021-08-13T19:33:37.964+12:002021-08-13T19:33:37.964+12:00Ricardo:
The New Zealand electricity sector is a ...Ricardo:<br /><br />The New Zealand electricity sector is a natural monopoly, and currently consists of an oligopoly. As I am sure you are aware, oligopolies will tend to supply less than the ideal quantity of output, so as to maximise profits. Which means one of three things needs to happen:<br /><br />(1) Break up the oligopoly into smaller and more numerous firms... except that the nature of the electricity market tends towards consolidation.<br /><br />(2) Regulate price and output. Which you would almost certainly decry as Communism.<br /><br />(3) Nationalise. Which you would decry as Communism.<br /><br />Now (2) in practice means that price and output are set by the Government, not by firms. The only difference between (2) and (3) is that the lower-than-current profits of (2) still go to the private sector, whereas under (3) they go to the Government. Leftists would prefer the latter because it provides revenue for social programmes. DShttps://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-40051227470343058252021-08-13T11:03:37.019+12:002021-08-13T11:03:37.019+12:00On second thought Wayne, maybe you are right. Comp...On second thought Wayne, maybe you are right. Compensation should be paid, and yes there has to be some pricing mechanism that delivers both sufficient reinvestment for supply purposes and a fair retail price.<br /><br />Where we may differ is that when electricity supply was privatised I was dubious that there actually was a solid case for benefit to the end user. I suspected it was an ideological excuse for private gain and to prove the whole efficient market model. You were close enough to the action to comment. <br /><br />To satisfy myself on these matters, because we can be wrong I checked out what people like Brian Easton observed. I checked what I could from Stats NZ and power industry sources. <br />Conclusion is that there have been huge benefits to investor returns, significant but insufficient investment for the future and no price advantage delivered to consumers. There is however a counter argument that before 87 that prices were heavily subsidised and that current prices are maybe insufficient. Given different tax regimes etc that may be a bag of worms. <br /><br />So what would renationalising achieve? Probably a costly way of proving neither model works well.<br /><br />I think a far more constructive question is how can we achieve a sustainable supply in a world where fossil energy is declining and environmentally damaging? I dont see either private capital nor Wellington bureaucracy as an answer. I do see the engineers free of ideological constraints being capable of designing options that the people could decide upon. Nick Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609312325425361413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-5184369386778686392021-08-13T10:50:55.662+12:002021-08-13T10:50:55.662+12:00Love your comedy posts Chris. Keep them coming!Love your comedy posts Chris. Keep them coming!bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08068391165881872741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-55985966326251155542021-08-13T10:40:26.097+12:002021-08-13T10:40:26.097+12:00All of which will do almost nothing to save the pl...All of which will do almost nothing to save the planet. What these strong politicians could do is refuse to deal with countries that are increasing their carbon output. Countries that are importing more coal for more power stations every year. Countries that are making no real effort to change. That would be a good start rather than trying to stop our miniscule emissions.<br /><br />Unfortunately that would involve dropping China as both a buyer and supplier. That would involve real consequences for the wealthy. So instead, we tinker around the edges. Pretending we are making a difference, just making sure it is others that have to pay the cost.<br /><br />As for nationalising our infrastructure, look at the mess made of a simple thing like MIQ, or getting a vaccine tracking system. To think those same eople could run our power system is laughable. Sadly. CXHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07716356211635024878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-45749224428552681192021-08-13T08:56:28.090+12:002021-08-13T08:56:28.090+12:00Numbers matter, Chris.
For NZ to put itself on a w...Numbers matter, Chris.<br />For NZ to put itself on a war footing against climate change would not be the equivalent of Britain declaring war on Nazi Germany: it would be the equivalent of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick declaring war on the USA. By all means, let us ally ourselves with those whose actions will actually have an effect on climate change. For example, we could commit ourselves to matching every action that China takes to reduce emissions, since China is by far the largest emitter of CO2.<br />Oh, and "the IPCC warned us of impending doom" suggests that you have not actually read the IPCC report, but rather are getting your take from the lobbyists. You would quickly find that the IPCC is backing way off from its extreme predictions: the RCP8.5 scenario that it formerly treated as a 'reference scenario' for what is likely to happen (and that our Ministry for the Environment juiced up to its own RCP8.5+) is now regarded as not likely. The business-as-ususal scenarios are now 4.5 and 6.0, under which nothing very horrific is expected.<br />Finally, you seem to have missed the news that the power blackout was entirely the result of mistakes by the publicly-owned bits of the system: Genesis (majority-owned by the Government) and Transpower (wholly owned by the Government). Just how nationalisation of state-controlled activities will make them run better is not explained. PaulVDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08679228723470978488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-27992599259996116322021-08-12T23:45:06.227+12:002021-08-12T23:45:06.227+12:00We can't do anything according to you. Nor tur...We can't do anything according to you. Nor turn our exports away from China. Eloquence without reality is Cicero. I don't see any point in you unless you speak truth. Willing to pay for that. By your behaviour you're a dubious bloke.sumsuchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03133092096534660472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-75461520411398495452021-08-12T23:41:11.256+12:002021-08-12T23:41:11.256+12:00What can be denationalised can be renationalised. ...What can be denationalised can be renationalised. Strategic assets were sold at bargain basement prices and can be repurchased at a fair price.<br />The neoliberal economic zealots of the late 20th century cannot enforce the doctrine of 'no take backies' of future generations. The Barronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-49537351818511389512021-08-12T21:49:11.800+12:002021-08-12T21:49:11.800+12:00It annoyed me that the media persisted in calling ...It annoyed me that the media persisted in calling ActionStation "grassroots", a "youth movement", or a "community group" when they've been a registered third party lobbyist for the past two general elections.Jennie Maenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-28719448650477430082021-08-12T19:41:01.083+12:002021-08-12T19:41:01.083+12:00But if re-nationalization requires extra taxpaye...But if re-nationalization requires extra taxpayer funds for buying back the privatized shares, then would it not be more productive to put that extra money straight into the additional investments in electricity required for reducing blackout dangers ? <br /><br />And is not giving up on the priority need of profitability a dangerous self-deceiving shift towards subsidized production for needs regardless of costs, which can only be kept going from profits or consumption potential in other areas, and ultimately ends up in widening poverty instead of the initially imagined benefits through no "profit costs"?Jens Mederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17304734497662325275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-78252340851160571932021-08-12T17:55:32.716+12:002021-08-12T17:55:32.716+12:00What exactly does spending several billion dollars...What exactly does spending several billion dollars to renationalise the entire electrical industry actually do? My answer, absolutely nothing. All it does is establish a new government department (or SOE) running the electricity system. So a vast increase in the national debt to achieve nothing new. Unless of course you try the Cuban or Venezualan solution of nationalising without compensation. If nothing else, New Zealand would become an economic pariah going down that path.<br /><br />If the government really does want to do the things you want, it could be done by regulation, or indeed spending the several billion that you would spend on nationalisation to actually create new generation systems and incentives to industry, farming and households.<br /><br />I appreciate you and I have very different views when it comes to the economy, but I could but help a wry smile that the first recourse of those who are of the old left always think the answer to just about anything economic is to nationalise it.<br /><br />I suggest a the bit more imagination the dredging up nationalisation is required to make a difference on climate change.<br /><br />I actually trust Jacinda and Grant will be more imaginative about the solution. Their success on Covid 19 was bringing the whole community with them. Surely that is a pointer forward.. Wayne Mapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12906396523791648270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-45024252008167120762021-08-12T14:40:03.583+12:002021-08-12T14:40:03.583+12:00A lack of security of gas supply and a toxic attit...A lack of security of gas supply and a toxic attitude to coal frame the market even before the sun not shining and the wind not blowing. Don't blame the market, blame the design and parameters placed upon it.<br /><br />Ah yes nationalisation, where <b>history</b> does not matter. <br /><br />- Do the asset owners get fair compensation or is it just state theft?<br />- Of course MBIE has far more expertise in power generation and distribution<br />- of course government apparatchiks will know how much is needed, precisely when and by whom and for what correct purposes.<br />- guaranteed cheap power to south Auckland will do nicely, less so for wealthier more rural <i>electorates</i> regions<br />- of course giving politicians power to alter prices when where and how they see fit can never cause damage or revolution<br />-of course politicians will know how best to plan for future needs and preferences and how to best invest in what technology, not necessarily that offered by political allies/cronies/favoured suppliers or donors<br />- so on and so on and so onRicardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05840390411136437843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-91815662078979203002021-08-12T14:06:50.795+12:002021-08-12T14:06:50.795+12:00Andrew, Im sure you said the same when New Labour ...Andrew, Im sure you said the same when New Labour were launched so many years ago. I certainly did. None of the Rogernomes have understood the basic dynamics of monopolies, duopolies, cartels, especially in utilities. In short they control markets, and not vice versa through fair market pricing. That was never going to happen. Nationalise them, definitely. Nick Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609312325425361413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-62997089160826906522021-08-12T13:48:27.306+12:002021-08-12T13:48:27.306+12:00And reinstate a 21st century MOW to form the backb...And reinstate a 21st century MOW to form the backbone of infrastructure development and maintenance, oh and to focus on getting houses built......how long do we hold our breath.<br /><br />Campaign rally billing could be "Passing wind against thunder" Katnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-24185114691132034932021-08-12T12:49:45.623+12:002021-08-12T12:49:45.623+12:00Mad Max Bradfords insane break up of Electricorp ...Mad Max Bradfords insane break up of Electricorp finally bears its evil fruit. The idea of serious competition in a nation as amll in area as a minor province in most nations and a polulation equivalent to an average global city where a single supplier is the norm must surely be at an end. The Govt has two option to achieve a stable energy supply and a carbon free future in the sector. 1. Renationalise and have it run by engineers with those two goals to achieve 2. Appoint a state Energy Tsar with full control to coordinate the whole system to the same ends. To continue with the current situation is madness.Andrew Nicholsnoreply@blogger.com