On the day it's announced we have reduced our emissions now for three years in a row, so good on us, the very next day Transpower, the people who get the electricity into your lounge, tell us yet again that this Winter has issues and peak load and demand might be problematic.
Part one of the emissions reduction bit is increasingly about us feeling good because, as we also found out a bit over a week ago, huge chunks of the world are not reducing their emissions and not even close.
Which then leads to a lot of people arguing that we shouldn’t bother because what we do makes no difference.
I come down on the other side of that. If we can, we should.
Let's be honest - in doing what we have so far, have we reached a point where we are massively inconvenienced? I wouldn’t have thought so until, well, until Transpower tell us what they have.
Here is a simple rule of thumb; to not have enough power in 2024 is simply not good enough and it should be seen as an abdication of responsibility.
The reason we don’t have enough is quite openly admitted. It's because the renewables are not voluminous enough and not reliable enough to cover the growing demand.
The transition hasn’t transitioned to the point where we can largely leave fossils behind.
So, here's the line for me. Save the planet all you want, even if it is futile given China and India aren't as interested. But don’t get so hell bent about it that the heater isn't on in July when its -3 degrees. That’s not a first world country and it's not a first world approach.
Making it even more ridiculous is that the transition involves technological advances like EV's. If we don’t have enough power now, how do we power EV's? How do we power generative AI, the so-called future? It's a future that requires 10x more power than a Google search.
Talk about cart before the horse.
When we still struggle Winter in, Winter out to do the basics we have allowed ideology to hijack reality.
That is not the future, of the future.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
Which then leads to a lot of people arguing that we shouldn’t bother because what we do makes no difference.
I come down on the other side of that. If we can, we should.
Let's be honest - in doing what we have so far, have we reached a point where we are massively inconvenienced? I wouldn’t have thought so until, well, until Transpower tell us what they have.
Here is a simple rule of thumb; to not have enough power in 2024 is simply not good enough and it should be seen as an abdication of responsibility.
The reason we don’t have enough is quite openly admitted. It's because the renewables are not voluminous enough and not reliable enough to cover the growing demand.
The transition hasn’t transitioned to the point where we can largely leave fossils behind.
So, here's the line for me. Save the planet all you want, even if it is futile given China and India aren't as interested. But don’t get so hell bent about it that the heater isn't on in July when its -3 degrees. That’s not a first world country and it's not a first world approach.
Making it even more ridiculous is that the transition involves technological advances like EV's. If we don’t have enough power now, how do we power EV's? How do we power generative AI, the so-called future? It's a future that requires 10x more power than a Google search.
Talk about cart before the horse.
When we still struggle Winter in, Winter out to do the basics we have allowed ideology to hijack reality.
That is not the future, of the future.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
“Which then leads to a lot of people arguing that we shouldn’t bother because what we do makes no difference.
I come down on the other side of that. If we can, we should.”
We Should?? Why? This admission confirms that you agree we should convert arable farmland to pine trees, reduce flatulent live stock and promote a mired of other wacky ideas in the name of saving the planet. We are already spending billions to solve a problem that doesn’t exist from what I have read. World leading Physicists and Atmospheric scientists knowledgeably state that we don’t have a climate emergency, however, MSM, you apparently side with, refuse to have their climate religion questioned.
It has always been and will always be an ideological house of cards scam.
Glad you've woken up Mr. Hosking.
The argument for reducing or eliminating fossil fuels to provide power for heating etc is based on the assumption that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
The world is awash with people making this claim, repeating it mantra-like without any knowledge of the science of climate and weather.
It has been shown in the most certain terms and clarity that temperatures have varied throughout the history of the world with changes in carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere following on behind temperature changes, not the other way round as the climate alarmists would have us believe.
It is so difficult to understand why mankind follows the scare-mongers and scam-artists but ignores, in particular, the truly independent climate scientists who have ascertained that warming of planet earth leads to higher carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere as opposed to those who continue to state (their livelihoods may depend on it) that increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere leads to global warming: hysterical fools such UN Sec Gen, Al Gore, Chris Bowen, James Shaw et al.
Even primary school children know that without CO2 we will not have fodder as photosynthesis will not take place: no food for livestock so no meat or milk or butter or cheese. Little or no grain, sugar beet, sugar cane. Never mind, we will all slowly starve to death -- in the name of corrupted scientists.
Mike - the way the power grid works is that the lights are either on or off. Once demand exceeds supply (low hydro storage, periods of no wind, and insufficient reliable fossil fuel based supply, say), Transpower must load-shed to protect what it can of the network. Such situation is not at all pretty.
As for 'doing what we can', well you might be able to do more than some, as the impact of high carbon taxes leading to expensive power and petrol, and all related goods and services falls disproportionately on poorer folks. Conservative estimate is that this is $1,800 per household per year. For essentially no benefit other than making poli's look good.
By the way; electricity serves only around 20% of our energy needs. The balance is all from fossil fuels: 20% for light transport (cars, vans, trucks), 20% for heavy transport (aircraft, ships), and 40% direct heating (everything from firing your gas cook top, your Infinity hot water, industrial furnaces, coal fires, etc etc). Somewhere in these rounded numbers is the burning of timber in wood fires (home heating). No significant proportion of any of these can be moved onto so-called renewable's without huge cost and environmental degradation to boot.
Demand for electricity for datacentres and to charge EV's is only set to rise, and no-one knows where the extra supply will come from.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.