However, there has been a seismic shift in energy policy in Europe with the Swedish government’s announcement that it will abandon its 100 per cent renewable energy by 2040 target. Pursuing 100 per cent renewables had destabilised their energy sector and increased energy costs. They will instead favour a more stable energy system based on nuclear power to ensure reliable and affordable energy.
The decision, driven by the recognition that too much reliance on wind and solar power would not meet the energy demands of a modern economy, reflects a shift away from the mindset of transitioning to renewables at any cost. Similar moves can be observed in other countries such as France, Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, where there is a re-evaluation of the role of nuclear power and a reconsideration of bans on fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, Norway’s energy ministry has granted approval for oil and gas projects worth over $30 billion NZ as the country aims to continue as Europe’s largest natural gas supplier. The projects, in the North and Norwegian Seas, involve new developments, expansion of existing fields and enhanced oil recovery initiatives.
Norway has emerged as a key supplier of natural gas to Europe, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the demand is expected to remain strong as buyers seek alternatives to Russian energy. The approved projects will come on stream in the latter half of the 2020s, maintaining Norway’s position as a significant oil and gas exporter. One of the projects holds an estimated 650 million barrels of oil equivalent, making it one of the most significant recent developments on the Norwegian continental shelf.
In contrast, Australia seems eager to close its coal-fired power stations ahead of reliable alternatives despite the practical challenges of backing up intermittent wind and solar power. Relying heavily on renewables within a short timeframe carries risk, while the Swedish and Norwegians have taken a pragmatic approach to energy policy.
In New Zealand, we are fortunate to have abundant hydro and geothermal electricity generation, which forms a significant part of our energy mix. However, we still heavily rely on coal and natural gas to ensure a stable energy supply through to the end of the decade and will need gas through until at least 2050.
While I am a great supporter of 100 per cent renewable electricity generation, it must be affordable while not compromising the reliability of our electricity grid.
Sound energy policy balances affordability, reliability and sustainability – we ignore that at our peril.
Stuart Smith is a N Z National Party politician who has been a member of the House of Representatives for the Kaikōura electorate since 2014. This article was first published HERE
Meanwhile, Norway’s energy ministry has granted approval for oil and gas projects worth over $30 billion NZ as the country aims to continue as Europe’s largest natural gas supplier. The projects, in the North and Norwegian Seas, involve new developments, expansion of existing fields and enhanced oil recovery initiatives.
Norway has emerged as a key supplier of natural gas to Europe, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the demand is expected to remain strong as buyers seek alternatives to Russian energy. The approved projects will come on stream in the latter half of the 2020s, maintaining Norway’s position as a significant oil and gas exporter. One of the projects holds an estimated 650 million barrels of oil equivalent, making it one of the most significant recent developments on the Norwegian continental shelf.
In contrast, Australia seems eager to close its coal-fired power stations ahead of reliable alternatives despite the practical challenges of backing up intermittent wind and solar power. Relying heavily on renewables within a short timeframe carries risk, while the Swedish and Norwegians have taken a pragmatic approach to energy policy.
In New Zealand, we are fortunate to have abundant hydro and geothermal electricity generation, which forms a significant part of our energy mix. However, we still heavily rely on coal and natural gas to ensure a stable energy supply through to the end of the decade and will need gas through until at least 2050.
While I am a great supporter of 100 per cent renewable electricity generation, it must be affordable while not compromising the reliability of our electricity grid.
Sound energy policy balances affordability, reliability and sustainability – we ignore that at our peril.
Stuart Smith is a N Z National Party politician who has been a member of the House of Representatives for the Kaikōura electorate since 2014. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
So after highlighting why the renewable energy psyop is not working,(cost/reliability) you then go on to say that you are a great supporter of 100% renewable electricity generation??? WTF!
I agree that you can have a focus on alternatives but with the caveat that it must be economic.
Up till now we have thrown probably in excess of $20B at the conversion process if you include the ridiculous prices we are forced to pay for electricity to allow renewables a market opportunity.
The casualty is industry running out of NZ so they can emit CO2 in a friendly jurisdiction if that is considered a win then it is construct for virtue signalling.
We in NZ need to reestablish our energy competitiveness and start thinking about our working population and stop trying to please a ruling class.
Not a single word about the acceptance by National that the Methane debate which has been heinously overestimated by 4 times the effect is dead . Methane is a gas that dissipates naturally therefore could never accumulate in the atmosphere .
For National to still support Zero carbon is tantamount to stating that sea and air travel is to be eliminated , vehicles , farms and business have NO place in our lives , food production must stop , people should not breathe and life as we know it should stop to be Zero Carbon .
First ACT deserves a better partner in Government that has some wisdom and direction , NOT voter appeasing twaddle .
Secondly National should place Hon James Shaw in front of the privileges committee for continually misleading Parliament over incorrect claims of Methane ( Proven incorrect by the IPCC) in the atmosphere and the catastrophic claims about CO2 and non existent sea level rise around the NZ coastline
Start the process now to initiate SMR nuclear before 2040. In the interim, support gas exploration, because we are sure going to need it. Avoid pitfalls like Lake Onslow and offshore wind white elephants, and don’t listen to any nonsense from James Shaw
I think Sweden is great country. They have the courage to go their own way. They did it during covid and looks like they’re doing it again in modifying their net zero by 2040 targets. No inane virtue signalling or group think. All power to them. We used to have a spine and a mind of our own too…
WW
an anybody explain why hydro, our most reliable and readily available power generation resource, is not the obvious solution? And I don't mean perpetual motion as proposed by the Onslow fantasy. We need more people with Muldoon mentality right now - it just works.
Unfortunately, apart from a few minor projects there is very little hydro potential left to develop. The Motu is the only major undammed river, and it should retain its wild river status. And then there is the silting problem, which has reduced Roxburgh to little more than a run-of-river generator, with Clyde heading the same way.
Great rhetoric Stuart and you are preaching to the converted here. Now you just need to communicate this, and the obvious conclusions to your esteemed leaders and fellow MPs and candidates.
NetZero is being proven to be not possible or practical in Europe, so why are the Nats holding onto it for grim death here. Face up to the reality. NZ will need fossil fuels, so why are the Nats not supporting opening up exploration of our own resources.
Methane risk, even from the IPPC climate scaremongers has been slashed by up to 80%, so why aren't the Nats trumpeting this and promising a scientific review of all facts as part of their agricultural policy.
The climate scaremongers have also slashed their temperature rise predictions, so why aren't Nats promising to require NIWA etc to review their extreme predictions for sea level rise etc. 100% renewable is great, can we build some more dams or geothermal as that at least gives reasonable base-load generation, which wind and solar don't.
Stuart, I really like a lot of what you say and write but fear that you are a bit of a lone voice (or part of a small cadre) in your party, and that your views won't carry through to actions once Nats are in power. I hope I'm wrong but as National aren't coming out and clearly stating their position on these important matters, they won't have a clear mandate to make changes if they are elected. And this is one of the biggest criticisms of the current lot.
Post a Comment