3News » Home

National changes its renewable energy goals

8 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA

video
Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:00a.m.

National appears to be abandoning its goal of having 90 percent of all electricity coming from renewable sources by 2025.

And leader John Key says to avoid future winter power blackouts, Labour's ban on new coal and thermal plants must be dumped.

When it comes to energy and electricity the National Party's brains trust say they have a plan to stop the lights going out in future, and stop energy saving campaigns in the years ahead.

National will dump Labour's ban on new coal and thermal power plants, deemed bad for the environment.

Key also now appears to be abandoning National's loose goal of having 90 percent of all electricity renewable by 2025, that is wind farms and hydro.

But Labour has bitten back, saying it is proof National does not believe in climate change.

But Key has also had a swipe at Labour, saying because the lakes were low earlier this year - thermal energy has provided 50 percent of New Zealand’s power so far this year.

Key's approach today makes him an easy target for Labour to claim he does not care or believe in climate change.

But for Key, his message is reasonably clever; he is effectively saying he will do what it takes to keep the lights on. And amongst voters, that pragmatism might just be popular.
  
3 News
 
RadioLIVE's Marcus Lush speaks with energy consultant Dr John Small about National's energy policy.
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [8]

Alex
15 Aug 2008 7:01p.m.

"Your ideas sound expensive to."

Not as expensive as producing coal in a lab. There's a reason coal isn't mass produced in labs and it's that it's insanely expensive. Why would anyone want to produce coal in a lab when you can mine it much more cheaply (for now, anyway)? When we're at the stage that it's cheaper to produce coal in a lab (how does that even work, anyway?) coal will be so expensive no one will want to use it. It's atrocious for the environment, too - and not just for climate change (unless we like the look of the air in China).

I wonder what you need to do that, anyway...maybe LOTS AND LOTS OF ELECTRICITY. Sounds like a great idea - produce something atrocious for the environment using renewable energy, then use that to produce the electricty needed to produce more atrocious stuff.

An endless cycle of terribleness...ah, the right wingers dream.

Alex
15 Aug 2008 6:50p.m.

"The wind turbines built in NZ so far have run on average at 1% capacity to date."

What? Wind turbines run at about 33% capacity which means that if we had 999 megawatts of wind turbine generating capacity, we'd be able to get 333 megawatts out of them at any one time.

What's more is that the wind turbine in Wellington was built as a research project to see how efficient wind turbines in the Wellington region would be - turns out it's one of the most efficient in the world! With a lot of New Zealand more than 40 degrees south of the equator we're perfectly placed to take advantage of wind energy (roaring forties).

"The Russians are using Peters theory to find oil"

What is this?

cyril
15 Aug 2008 3:46p.m.

where did you come from Alex? Your ideas sound expensive to. The wind turbines built in NZ so far have run on average at 1% capacity to date. How many do we need to meet our needs?
The Russians are using Peters theory to find oil and are having more success than the West and at depths that can't have come from dead dinos.
Dave you sound like a member of Labour or the Greens. Full of negatism but no practicle solutions.Labours silly ideas arn't helping the enviroment but will doom us to economic desaster while winning them browny points on the world political stage. I'll bet if Helen loses this election she'll have a cushy job in the UN with all the other political has beens by the next election.

Alex
15 Aug 2008 2:48p.m.

"Coal? High grade coal can be created under lab conditions in days."

How much does it cost? No doubt so much it's not economically viable and won't be for a very long time.

"Oil? Current evidence shows oil is not a fossil fuel and is probably created around the earths mantle by a combination of heat and pressure and could possibly prove to be inexhaustabe."

I don't know much about this but there's more than one side to that debate, and it strikes me as people saying, "Oh no, there's evidence of peak oil - how do we stop people from finding alternatives so we can continue to have their money? We do what climate change deniers do - fund research that's biased in our favour!"

"Oil is not running out, we have a supply problem due to a lack of investment in drilling and refining."

The reason for the lack of investment is that it's so expensive no one wants to. Oil will already be extremely expensive by the time anyone gets round to drilling or refining it. Are you referring to the oil sands in Canada and oil shale?

"But it has to be done sensibly, not out of panic and hysteria."

I'm not seeing any panic or hysteria. Lots of people don't care or even know about peak oil (or rather, peak everything - even iron is running out).

If we covered 1% of New Zealand is wind turbines, that'd give us 3x the power generation capacity we have now. Of course the wind isn't blowing everywhere all the time, but that's why you have enough for 3x what you need. Combine that with hydro, under sea and geothermal and we'd be pretty well off. Of course we'll always have thermal generators as back up.

Dave
15 Aug 2008 10:30a.m.

Think Big of the seventies is oficially back and muldoon just stepped back through the door.

Use the most expensive form of energy in gas and then say screw the environment.
Not to mention the fact that this will lead to increasing the cost of wholesale electricity leading to a deepening recession as consumers struggle to survive,

Where will this funding come from? more secret borrowing until New Zealand looks like the financial mess that it was in last time National tried this policy approach?.

Peter, Upper Hutt
15 Aug 2008 10:21a.m.

What resources are running out? Or are you referring to the so called 'fossil fuels'. Coal? High grade coal can be created under lab conditions in days. Oil? Current evidence shows oil is not a fossil fuel and is probably created around the earths mantle by a combination of heat and pressure and could possibly prove to be inexhaustabe. There are more oil reserves discovered now than there have been in the last 50 years combined! Oil is not running out, we have a supply problem due to a lack of investment in drilling and refining. Natural gas? Well since thats a byproduct of oil...

I'm all for developing our sustainable resources and reducing any harmful effects on our environment. But it has to be done sensibly, not out of panic and hysteria. A combined campaign of energy generation with energy conservation is the best way forward.

cyril
14 Aug 2008 10:22p.m.

There is as much or more proof that man made global warming is a money making fellacy like the 2ky bug and bird flu. There is a lot of money to be made from global warming hysteria.
I don't doubt global warming just that man made co2 is resposable.
The do gooders will be the first to sqweal when there lights and heaters go off.
What sense is there in us not using our fossil fuels but letting it be sold to someone else so they can burn it. Bit like giving kids a handful of stones then saying the broken windows arn't my fault. If we burn it at least we can try and do it as enviromentally friendly as possable and we get the benifit not some overseas corporation.

Alex
14 Aug 2008 7:47p.m.

"he is effectively saying he will do what it takes to keep the lights on"

Using resources that are running out and going to become unaffordable isn't keeping the lights on. It's turning them off for a long, long time.

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio