Discussion:
The price of power going up
(too old to reply)
Gordon
2024-08-07 03:21:05 UTC
Permalink
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.
David Goodwin
2024-08-07 11:43:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@leaf.net.nz
says...
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Several past Governments (both sides) have taken their eye off the ball.
Rich80105
2024-08-07 20:07:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 23:43:27 +1200, David Goodwin
Post by David Goodwin
says...
Post by Gordon
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.
Post by Gordon
Several past Governments (both sides) have taken their eye off the ball.
The past few explorations by companies were not successful - in one
case they left the government having to spend a lot of money to clean
up to avoid a danger to shipping. It was a National-led government
that decided that the tenders for drilling were not sufficient to
cover costs; and during most of the last Labour Governments nobody was
wanting to put in tenders anyway.
Willy Nilly
2024-08-07 21:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by David Goodwin
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.
David Goodwin
2024-08-07 22:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Got any reputable sources? A quick search suggests around 10 years from
permit to production for off-shore gas.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
As it has not been evaluated we don't *know* there is gas there. Maybe
there is, maybe there isn't. There is a finite supply of the stuff in
the ground so all economically exploitable deposits *will* be consumed
sooner or later.
Post by Willy Nilly
Your
idiocy goes further -- in terms of pure logic, you claim that in the
absence of guaranteed results, one shouldn't even explore.
I never said that. I said we shouldn't count on finding more because
finding more is not guaranteed. What *is* guaranteed is that someday the
gas will run out and an alternative will be required.
Post by Willy Nilly
But
exploration is how one finds the results!
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?
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
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.
Willy Nilly
2024-08-08 02:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Rich80105
2024-08-08 03:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
According to a radio report earlier today, the organisation that uses
a lot of our current gas reserves has been actively exploring for gas
under land for some years with no success
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
Of the 98% that has not been explored, what percentage is unlikely to
be productive from known other factors?
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Those predictions quite a lot of years ago were proved wrong due to
shale oil - but now the middle east oil-producing countries are
preparing for when they are no longer able to earn money from oil
exports - perhaps they are part of your cult, Willy Nilly . . .
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
So is Lake Onslow starting to look good for you, Willy Nilly?
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
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.
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
Willy Nilly
2024-08-09 00:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
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.
Your thickness knows no bounds, Rich. What do you think the word
"currently" means? In the last 3 days, wind has been contributing
just 4% to current generation, in the week before that, only 2%. Wind
is notoriously unreliable, and must always be backed up by coal & gas
generating capability. These price spikes we are currently having are
because wind hasn't been worth squat. Nor are your brains.

David Goodwin
2024-08-08 08:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
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.

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.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
Rich80105
2024-08-08 08:59:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 20:30:58 +1200, David Goodwin
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
You are not mistaken - there has been a lot of money spent on
exploration on land in recent times - without success (or at least
without commercial quantities being found).
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
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
- often in the same places. Some have had resource consents for years
with nothing started - we go back to the priority being the interests
of shareholders . . .)
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by David Goodwin
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.
It would be good to get an idea of the costs of creating, and
operating the plant - even if as expected it would be more expensive
than current developments.
Post by David Goodwin
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
We are already using wind turbines - show us that burning gas will
deliver long term at lower cost . . .
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Post by Willy Nilly
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.
Rich80105
2024-08-08 02:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Before bringing it to production there is the exploration step - if
commercial companies are not prepared to pay enough for a permit to
cover clean-up expenses if they walk away, why should the government
take that risk?
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by David Goodwin
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.
Oil and gas need to be in sufficient quantity to be commercially
viable - and those involved in the industry have not been prepared to
risk their capital to try to compete with relatively cheap fuel from
elsewhere around the world. Who do you want to pay to do some more
exploring, Willy Nilly?
Loading...