Clive Bibby: Our energy crisis, when it comes, will be one of our own making

I am not an expert on any subject but have long held an interest in opportunities we seem to be overlooking that could make a huge difference when deciding what we want to become as a sovereign nation punching above its weight - in a world that for some, appears to have no future - at least not one that appeals.

I, like so many other ordinary kiwis watch good ideas being ignored by the “powers that be” who seem frozen in time, frightened to move in a seemingly positive direction because of the consequences of something going wrong in the process.

I’m not saying we should only move forward when all the potential unknowns have been investigated and the chances of failure are virtually zilch. 

Because if we wait that long, society may well have moved on to something else that looks promising. The quality of our future depends on a certain amount of risk taking especially when the potential benefits far outweigh the stagnation associated with procrastination. With many decisions, particularly those that will benefit the bulk of the nation’s citizens, we must trust the instincts of our best brains and the advice they provide in good faith. 

So, what are these ideas that currently look to be the best options available and how are they being treated by those who will make decisions on our behalf. 

Well there are many but sadly, most are and will remain untested.

Why is that so?

There are many vital industries that constantly review the way they operate because time is money and we can’t afford to fall behind our competitors in the markets where our exports are sold. 

We are a nation of traders and the efficiency of individual industries is the one thing that allows us to successfully compete in markets on the other side of the world even after paying the freight which, on its own, can defeat even the best operators.

For the sake of this discussion I will concentrate on the one factor which is arguably the most important contributor to successful business ventures - the cost of energy. 

It just so happens that this important ingredient is the one that is constantly in the media headlines of just about every country on the planet. And it is the efficiency of delivering that energy to its end user that will determine the country’s BOP (Balance of Payments) figures come balance date. 

If our sources of energy are too costly or unacceptably damaging to the environment and are replaced by cleaner, more expensive but less reliable sources, then it is likely we will struggle to avoid blackouts when a disruption occurs. That is already happening in most industrial economies that have adopted clean energy programmes that are unreliable at peak use time. 

Obviously then, the trick is to look at alternatives that compare favourably when all the acceptable selection criteria are taken into account. 

That is why we are having, or should be having, a debate about the sort of energy mix we chose to power our national grid. 

Some prominent environmentalists are arguing for a $15billion (estimate) unproven pump hydro scheme to be constructed in the lower South Island, a million miles from the end user with all the negative efficiency ramifications of that site. Clearly it is only being considered because it is not the other less expensive medium sized nuclear power generator that would be a much more efficient energy producer and user of the dollars spent constructing and maintaining the plant. The plans being developed for the Lake Onslow project should learn from the Australian experience building a similar plant in the Snowy mountains where that version of the idea is being developed at such a huge over budget cost it may be abandoned. But the real reason why some of these presumably game changer projects fail isn’t so much the original cost - it is the fact that idealogical pursuits are not always a good fit with the end user of the product they are designed to deliver. Cost overruns that make a project uneconomic are often the result of the erratic nature of the energy they produce (wind and solar) or the cost of the energy they themselves consume (pump hydro). The establishment cost of a nuclear plant on the other hand is a one off cost that is recovered relatively quickly because the plant operates 24/7 and the once threat of a melt down has diminished to the extent that even the IPCC puts Nuclear power at the top of its list of most recommended clean energy options. You would think it would be a no brainer. 

Unfortunately, it isn’t that simple. 

This is where the unfortunate intrusion of political idealogical objectives can result in the rejection of a plan that has the capacity to make this country a world leader in so many of the industries we are already good at. 

And we will not progress one step closer to achieving the utopian dream that is there for the taking if we continue to pander to these righteous, self important gnomes of Zurich who are actually afraid of their own shadow. 

Time for a change at the top. Common sense is back in fashion.

Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.