https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350370185/power-prices-hit-another-factory-pain-set-continue
This is in Stuff so it soon going to main stream in the public's mind.
The ideas/points in this article are what has been circulating in this ng
and elsewhere.
I am sure that the tax adjustments will not pay for the upcoming increase.
Some snippets from the article.
"The rising price of wholesale electricity is likely to hit households soon, according to industry experts."
"John Harbord, chairperson of the Major Electricity Users Group, said most manufacturing and logistics companies were struggling.
He said those companies were having to compete with nations such as Australia,
where the wholesale electricity price was below $100.
Energy Minister Simeon Brown said low rainfall and low gas reserves had driven up the cost of electricity.
?The tight gas supply is a direct result of the last government?s reckless energy policies. They banned oil and gas exploration,? he said.
Several past Governments (both sides) have taken their eye off the ball.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350370185/power-prices-hit-another-factory-pain-set-continue
This is in Stuff so it soon going to main stream in the public's mind.
The ideas/points in this article are what has been circulating in this ng
and elsewhere.
I am sure that the tax adjustments will not pay for the upcoming increase. >>
Some snippets from the article.
"The rising price of wholesale electricity is likely to hit households soon, >> according to industry experts."
"John Harbord, chairperson of the Major Electricity Users Group, said most >> manufacturing and logistics companies were struggling.
He said those companies were having to compete with nations such as Australia,
where the wholesale electricity price was below $100.
Energy Minister Simeon Brown said low rainfall and low gas reserves had
driven up the cost of electricity.
?The tight gas supply is a direct result of the last government?s reckless >> energy policies. They banned oil and gas exploration,? he said.
This comment from Mr. Brown is far from correct. Even had a massive gas >deposit been found the day the previous government was sworn in it would >likely still be a few years away from production, so it is too soon for
the exploration ban to have had any effect on gas supply negative or >otherwise.
And there is no guarantee there is even any further gas to be discovered
- for all we know had oil & gas exploration not been banned we'd still
be in the exact same situation we are now. As a result, allowing further >exploration isn't a solution to the problem as such.
If we're very lucky we might find more, but we really shouldn't be
basing our future plans on something that may very well never happen.
Several past Governments (both sides) have taken their eye off the ball.
This comment from Mr. Brown is far from correct. Even had a massive gas >deposit been found the day the previous government was sworn in it would >likely still be a few years away from production, so it is too soon for
the exploration ban to have had any effect on gas supply negative or >otherwise.
And there is no guarantee there is even any further gas to be discovered
- for all we know had oil & gas exploration not been banned we'd still
be in the exact same situation we are now. As a result, allowing further >exploration isn't a solution to the problem as such.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
This comment from Mr. Brown is far from correct. Even had a massive gas >deposit been found the day the previous government was sworn in it would >likely still be a few years away from production, so it is too soon for
the exploration ban to have had any effect on gas supply negative or >otherwise.
Nonsense, 7 years is far in excess of time req to bring to production.
And there is no guarantee there is even any further gas to be discovered
- for all we know had oil & gas exploration not been banned we'd still
be in the exact same situation we are now. As a result, allowing further >exploration isn't a solution to the problem as such.
More nonsense from you. More gas & oil are absolutely guaranteed, the question is simply how easy they are to access. 98% of NZ has not
been surveyed for gas & oil in terms of on-site evaluation.
Your
idiocy goes further -- in terms of pure logic, you claim that in the
absence of guaranteed results, one shouldn't even explore.
But
exploration is how one finds the results!
Therefore, by your moronic
"logic", navel-gazing whilst sitting in our mud huts is the only way
to go. You lefties are the opposite of civilisation.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:Before bringing it to production there is the exploration step - if
This comment from Mr. Brown is far from correct. Even had a massive gas >>deposit been found the day the previous government was sworn in it would >>likely still be a few years away from production, so it is too soon for
the exploration ban to have had any effect on gas supply negative or >>otherwise.
Nonsense, 7 years is far in excess of time req to bring to production.
And there is no guarantee there is even any further gas to be discovered
- for all we know had oil & gas exploration not been banned we'd still
be in the exact same situation we are now. As a result, allowing further >>exploration isn't a solution to the problem as such.
More nonsense from you. More gas & oil are absolutely guaranteed, the >question is simply how easy they are to access. 98% of NZ has not
been surveyed for gas & oil in terms of on-site evaluation. Your
idiocy goes further -- in terms of pure logic, you claim that in the
absence of guaranteed results, one shouldn't even explore. But
exploration is how one finds the results! Therefore, by your moronic >"logic", navel-gazing whilst sitting in our mud huts is the only way
to go. You lefties are the opposite of civilisation.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
7 years is far in excess of time req to bring to production.
Got any reputable sources? A quick search suggests around 10 years from >permit to production for off-shore gas.
More gas & oil are absolutely guaranteed, the
question is simply how easy they are to access. 98% of NZ has not
been surveyed for gas & oil in terms of on-site evaluation.
As it has not been evaluated we don't *know* there is gas there.
There is a finite supply of the stuff in
the ground so all economically exploitable deposits *will* be consumed
sooner or later.
And for all we know the result may be no more (or not enough) gas. We
need an alternative in place *before* our gas supplies run out. Given >supplies are already starting to run low should we really wait until
we've proven there is no more gas to be found before we deploy an >alternative?
Your logic would appear to have us run on gas only until the the rolling >blackouts start due to shortages and only then start considering what
should replace it. You appear to be opposed to planning ahead for events
that are certain to occur until or you believe that we have an
inexhaustible supply of gas that somehow hasn't been discovered despite >decades of exploration.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
7 years is far in excess of time req to bring to production.
Got any reputable sources? A quick search suggests around 10 years from >>permit to production for off-shore gas.
We were not talking about off-shore, plenty of land-based to explore.
Of the 98% that has not been explored, what percentage is unlikely toMore gas & oil are absolutely guaranteed, the
question is simply how easy they are to access. 98% of NZ has not
been surveyed for gas & oil in terms of on-site evaluation.
As it has not been evaluated we don't *know* there is gas there.
You are not numerate. "Know" means we are assured of it up to a
certain error bounds called "delta". Delta can be very small but is
never zero. Your pedantic haggling about a 100.000000% certain
"knowledge" is pure rhetoric, devoid of useful meaning. You are
clownishly pretending knowledge.
There is a finite supply of the stuff in
the ground so all economically exploitable deposits *will* be consumed >>sooner or later.
It depends how much there is, and deep oil deposits, when exploited,
often partly replenish from seepage from lower depths. You are a
"peak oil" cultist, unrehabilitated from decades of proclaiming that
oil production will fall *this year* for sure, always wrong, never
dissuaded.
So is Lake Onslow starting to look good for you, Willy Nilly?And for all we know the result may be no more (or not enough) gas. We
need an alternative in place *before* our gas supplies run out. Given >>supplies are already starting to run low should we really wait until
we've proven there is no more gas to be found before we deploy an >>alternative?
So you are pro-nuclear, right? What, you're not?!? Well then, you are
just a rhetorician, pretending logic but only actually interested in
finding pathways to a pre-determined outcome. Pure leftist preening.
Why do you believe wind turbines do not work, Wlly Nilly? Without windYour logic would appear to have us run on gas only until the the rolling >>blackouts start due to shortages and only then start considering what >>should replace it. You appear to be opposed to planning ahead for events >>that are certain to occur until or you believe that we have an >>inexhaustible supply of gas that somehow hasn't been discovered despite >>decades of exploration.
Your representations of what I stand for are willfully false. I
oppose bad "solutions" which don't work, specifically wind turbines.
I am all for solutions which do work, like hydro and nuclear. My
praise of coal & gas is simply to highlight that these generators, so >despised by you greenie nitwits, are far preferable to your golden
idols of wind and solar. But hydro is excellent, and nuclear is the
ticket to a cheap-energy future -- but for the mindless opposition of >green-themed noobs like you. Anyways, until we return to a
meritocracy, nuclear isn't realistic as DEI cannot build such complex >technology. China can.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
7 years is far in excess of time req to bring to production.
Got any reputable sources? A quick search suggests around 10 years from >permit to production for off-shore gas.
We were not talking about off-shore, plenty of land-based to explore.
More gas & oil are absolutely guaranteed, the
question is simply how easy they are to access. 98% of NZ has not
been surveyed for gas & oil in terms of on-site evaluation.
As it has not been evaluated we don't *know* there is gas there.
You are not numerate. "Know" means we are assured of it up to a
certain error bounds called "delta". Delta can be very small but is
never zero. Your pedantic haggling about a 100.000000% certain
"knowledge" is pure rhetoric, devoid of useful meaning. You are
clownishly pretending knowledge.
There is a finite supply of the stuff in
the ground so all economically exploitable deposits *will* be consumed >sooner or later.
It depends how much there is, and deep oil deposits, when exploited,
often partly replenish from seepage from lower depths. You are a
"peak oil" cultist, unrehabilitated from decades of proclaiming that
oil production will fall *this year* for sure, always wrong, never
dissuaded.
And for all we know the result may be no more (or not enough) gas. We
need an alternative in place *before* our gas supplies run out. Given >supplies are already starting to run low should we really wait until
we've proven there is no more gas to be found before we deploy an >alternative?
So you are pro-nuclear, right? What, you're not?!? Well then, you are
just a rhetorician, pretending logic but only actually interested in
finding pathways to a pre-determined outcome. Pure leftist preening.
Your logic would appear to have us run on gas only until the the rolling >blackouts start due to shortages and only then start considering what >should replace it. You appear to be opposed to planning ahead for events >that are certain to occur until or you believe that we have an >inexhaustible supply of gas that somehow hasn't been discovered despite >decades of exploration.
Your representations of what I stand for are willfully false. I
oppose bad "solutions" which don't work, specifically wind turbines.
I am all for solutions which do work, like hydro and nuclear. My
praise of coal & gas is simply to highlight that these generators, so despised by you greenie nitwits, are far preferable to your golden
idols of wind and solar. But hydro is excellent, and nuclear is the
ticket to a cheap-energy future -- but for the mindless opposition of green-themed noobs like you. Anyways, until we return to a
meritocracy, nuclear isn't realistic as DEI cannot build such complex technology. China can.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
7 years is far in excess of time req to bring to production.
Got any reputable sources? A quick search suggests around 10 years from
permit to production for off-shore gas.
We were not talking about off-shore, plenty of land-based to explore.
If I'm not mistaken, it was only off-shore exploration that was banned.
This would mean we are talking *specifically* about off-shore
exploration.
- often in the same places. Some have had resource consents for yearsMore gas & oil are absolutely guaranteed, the
question is simply how easy they are to access. 98% of NZ has not
been surveyed for gas & oil in terms of on-site evaluation.
As it has not been evaluated we don't *know* there is gas there.
You are not numerate. "Know" means we are assured of it up to a
certain error bounds called "delta". Delta can be very small but is
never zero. Your pedantic haggling about a 100.000000% certain
"knowledge" is pure rhetoric, devoid of useful meaning. You are
clownishly pretending knowledge.
Companies have been exploring for oil and gas here for over half a
century. How many decades has it been since the last major discovery?
If they're searching and not finding, perhaps there is little to find. Exactly, but there is opportunity for more wind power and polar power
Are we planning for the potential outcome of not finding enough in time?
I guess building an LNG terminal is a plan, but not a cheap one.
There is a finite supply of the stuff in
the ground so all economically exploitable deposits *will* be consumed
sooner or later.
It depends how much there is, and deep oil deposits, when exploited,
often partly replenish from seepage from lower depths. You are a
"peak oil" cultist, unrehabilitated from decades of proclaiming that
oil production will fall *this year* for sure, always wrong, never
dissuaded.
And for all we know the result may be no more (or not enough) gas. We
need an alternative in place *before* our gas supplies run out. Given
supplies are already starting to run low should we really wait until
we've proven there is no more gas to be found before we deploy an
alternative?
So you are pro-nuclear, right? What, you're not?!? Well then, you are
just a rhetorician, pretending logic but only actually interested in
finding pathways to a pre-determined outcome. Pure leftist preening.
I have no problem with nuclear power in general. If it were economic to
build here then I'd have no problem living next to it. There is no
reason it can't be done safely and cleanly given proper regulation and >application of technology.
Your logic would appear to have us run on gas only until the the rolling
blackouts start due to shortages and only then start considering what
should replace it. You appear to be opposed to planning ahead for events
that are certain to occur until or you believe that we have an
inexhaustible supply of gas that somehow hasn't been discovered despite
decades of exploration.
Your representations of what I stand for are willfully false. I
oppose bad "solutions" which don't work, specifically wind turbines.
You often make this claim, but the most I've ever got from you when
asked to back it up was various unfounded claims about grid-size
batteries and accusations of being a troll.
I am all for solutions which do work, like hydro and nuclear. My
praise of coal & gas is simply to highlight that these generators, so
despised by you greenie nitwits, are far preferable to your golden
idols of wind and solar. But hydro is excellent, and nuclear is the
ticket to a cheap-energy future -- but for the mindless opposition of
green-themed noobs like you. Anyways, until we return to a
meritocracy, nuclear isn't realistic as DEI cannot build such complex
technology. China can.
Why do you believe wind turbines do not work, Wlly Nilly? Without wind
power we would have much greater problems with maintaining supply -
currently wind represents around 10% of current generation.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 15:59:43 |
| Calls: | 12,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,055 |