Who would have thought that the IPCC obsession with the origins of Climate Change would have been responsible for the demise of its own credibility?
I suppose it was only a matter of time before the ideologically driven mantra would have been exposed for being out of touch with reality.
Unfortunately or fortunately - depending on what you read
into the current energy crisis that has befallen most of the countries who
bought into the Green narrative of a world without fossil fuels - we are
experiencing a “world-wide wakeup call”
that is going to have serious implications for those who chose to adopt
their flawed concept “lock, stock and barrel”.
Interestingly, it appears as no surprise that left wing
administrations that have sycophantically endorsed the IPCC clean energy
policies are almost universally being overthrown by the rising tide of moderate
right wing movements that are pledged to a restoration of a reliable system
that maintains supply at peak periods of demand during both night and day.
In our neck of the woods, the Australian Albanese government
is facing a backlash from citizens who voted for them at the last election but
now feel betrayed by the introduction of policies that have resulted in an
uncharacteristic instability of energy supply.
A political novice could have predicted what would happen if
they persisted with this unwise strategy resulting in self inflicted wounds For
example - the forced abandonment of fossil fuels as the major energy source
while having little in the way of reliable substitutes to replace them was a
lemming like act that defied any sense of responsible government.
And for their troubles, that administration and others like
them in Europe and the United States are about to face the voters who have
already turned against them.
So looking ahead, what can we expect from responsible
governments who take over the reins of countries in the throes of an energy
crisis?
Thankfully here in New Zealand, we are not one of those
basket cases - at least not yet - but could have become so if we had continued with the previous government’s
irresponsible policies of banning drilling for oil and gas.
Having repealed the ban, our new government now has a great
opportunity to take advantage of the dominance of hydro and geothermal
contributions to the national grid that gives us time to investigate the
introduction of new energy sources, including Nuclear which ironically is now
listed as the IPCC’s favourite clean energy source - no doubt because it no
longer carries the outdated association with environmental pollution or being
regarded as unsafe - and because the technology has advanced to the extent that
it can become an economically viable addition to the mix of clean energy
supplies.
These are all good reasons why we are in a good position to
respond both to the negative effects of Climate Change without our traditional
dependence on fossil fuels but also to be able to base our future growth on
reliable energy supplies.
We are indeed a blessed country.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
13 comments:
So after the last government, who in their right mind will invest in exploring for natural gas in NZ. After the next change in government all their millions of dollars of investment will be worthless. Labour's damage to NZ extends far beyond their term in office.
All NZ needs now before our Olympians , other sports codes , supporters, media and tourists go to France and Europe is the Governments blessing of, Bon Voyage , return safely with an understanding that NUCLEAR POWER they used and lived in close proximity to them in France and Europe was not a problem.
Which of the Coalition Parties have the leadership to include a public consultation / discusion on the advantages of the availability of a modern small Nuclear Power reactor for the North Island .
Then what, living with brown out's like South Africa. All by design.
I thought nuclear energy was a base source - that it can't be turned on and off to balance the variable supply from 'renewable' sources. I know China has developed economic ones that are much smaller than hitherto, with capacities similar to our hydro schemes, but are they also flexible? It seems unlikely to me. ("Nuclear ... technology has advanced to the extent that it can become an economically viable addition to the mix of clean energy supplies")
Nuclear is a base supplier of energy. It is also the perfect compliment to a country with huge hydro and geothermal resources.
There is enough uranium and thorium to last for tens of millions of years.
Talk about sustainable energy!
No, Ross, our reserves of uranium won't even last a century - Google it. As for thorium, it needs to be converted to a fissile uranium isotope before it can be used as a nuclear fuel - a very expensive process.
My money when I've got my futures cap on remains nuclear fusion - low-temp fusion is the Holy Grail of atomic physics and cracking that would give us unlimited power with no pollution. Roll on...........
>the previous government’s irresponsible policies of banning drilling for oil and gas
is a seriously misleading falsehood. All that was banned was NEW licenses for OFFSHORE drilling. The media, and ACT, have persistently mis-stated the facts. Existing offshore licenses remained free to exercise - and the media are too lazy to investigate why no licensees have done so. Onshore drilling remained unrestricted.
The 'small' nuclear power stations being advocated do not exist; and if they did, they would not be good value. The DSIR maintained that geothermal steam was cheaper than nuclear-heated steam, and they were obviously correct. The base-load supply of electricity that could purportedly be done by nuclear would be grossly uneconomic compared with geothermal. And the harm from major nuclear mishaps rules out nuclear power stations. There is a distressing extent of ignorance on this.
Indeed, with electric power being such a vital resource we will need to accommodate the increases in demand in the future that will be greater than just our population increase. For this we will need to consider all options, including our great hydro and geothermal networks, coal at Huntly, and the rapidly developing networks of solar and wind turbine power, along with advances in battery technology. The last three didn’t get a mention in Clive Bibby’s piece. Then, there is the nuclear option. This is more problematic, but you can never say never. With ever increasing technological advancement here as well of course, it can only get better. At least, one can hope so. But, given public attitudes against nuclear power in whatever form in this country no government can dedicate itself to nuclear power development until public opinion comes on board. Then, once the decision is made there will be at least a decade before the switch is thrown. Australia is committed to nuclear power, if hesitatingly, but doesn’t expect it before 2035.
But maybe the ever-smart Chinese have lessons. According to the ABC (Australian) China is installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week, - think about that! - but at the same time, backing off previously ambitious plans for nuclear power generation. Energy experts are looking to China, the world's largest emitter, and once a climate villain, which is expected to meet its end-of-2030 target very soon, providing an example of planning energy generation well into the latter 21st Century.
Drilling for more oil and gas should only be seen as a stop gap solution. We cannot keep on drawing the stuff out of the ground indefinitely. Sooner or later, it is going to run out. Then what? Given the world’s dependence on fossil fuels not just for electricity, but as a means of powering vehicles, ships and aircraft, we had better have in place alternatives. In any case, there’s the effect on climate through combusting in the atmosphere fossil fuels that have taken millions of years to accumulate.
But it’s not just China. All around the world, including in this country, wind and solar farms are being increasingly established. In fact, we are in the throes of an emerging revolution in the development of solar and wind power and battery technology to store it, whether to bolster the grid or power directly cars and other needs. I believe that by the middle of this century the global vehicle fleet will be predominantly electric, powered from the various grids, or better, from solar panels on the roof. It had better, because by then filling the tank will be far more expensive than it is today, which is costly enough.
We shouldn’t be too impatient with the variously problems along the way. It took one and a quarter century to reach the standard of a modern car today. Think back a decade. How many e-cars or e-bikes were around. Very few, so real progress has been made. It will continue, driven by necessity.
Yes, my reason for not including wind and solar in my piece is because they have and always will be a relatively expensive source due to their unreliability plus the pollutant nature of the structural materials which will increasingly make them a less viable option than the others l have referred to.
My guess is that the fuel source used to power the electric vehicles in the future will be - at least in this country - a mix of the tried and proven (hydro and geothermal) and a small nuclear reactor supplementing our traditional providers.
For the above reasons, it is likely that wind (particularly) may well price itself off the market.
Finally, l believe that, due to the rapidly changing technology and associated increased efficiency of nuclear plants, the time lag currently used when planning for nuclear will be shortened dramatically in the foreseeable future which will make it a more acceptable option even for current governments.
But what do l know.
Not a heck of a lot, going on the preceding comments. Why would you write of the future supply of electricity in this country and deliberately exclude wind and solar generation, both of which are being relentlessly constructed?
Further, building of both is based on commercial confidence and without subsidies. We now have over 1,200 operating wind turbines, all built since the turn of the century, and more to come. A recently-opened wind farm on the Napier-Taupo Road generates enough power for 57,000 households, for instance. Solar farms are being built, or consented, now under fast-track opportunity, all over the country, made more economic by the dramatic reduction in the cost of photovoltaics panels.
On the other hand, Clive advocates nuclear power for this country. Nuclear power has a vital role in counties with large populations and little hydro opportunity. We’re the antithesis of that, with geothermal as well. Here nuclear power is just not on the public’s radar, and unlikely to be anytime soon, and all the more so given the growth in wind, solar and geothermal generation. In any case, just consenting it will be difficult enough. Where would it be built? Who wants a nuclear plant as a neighbor?
On a personal note, electricity is the life-blood of commerce, domestic life and, increasingly in the future. transport. We can’t take it for granted. I was 11 when our house was connected to the grid. What a day that was when the family stood outside and saw the light bulb under the eve light up!
It is and always will be about reliability!
That is why all development of wind (particularly but solar as well to some extent) farms is being questioned by nations through out the world irrespective of the size of population
And that is why nuclear is being advocated as the next best reliable source by environmentalists the world over. It is clean!
In order to avoid blackouts that are still common place in countries that have invested heavily in Wind and Solar, the people are demanding a mix that ensures they don’t occur other than during extreme events when the plants of all descriptions may be shut down
So, for most people it becomes a “no brainer” but there will always be the Neanderthals that continue touting at windmills (excuse the pun)
Is this the same Ewan McGregor who scoffed at my earlier suggestion that we could easily satisfy our future needs by building and continue to build hydro dams in relatively unpopulated conservation land (mountainous regions in both islands)
At the time l was advocating the inclusion of nuclear only if the environmental lobbyists continued to block that type of development delivering reliable energy supply at all times.
It is no surprise that the reason why we even thought about introducing Solar and Wind as options was because of the influence those environmentalists had on previous governments.
Had their archaic thinking been rejected, we would not have had to consider nuclear at all.
But unfortunately only time will tell if the decision to invest in wind and solar to the extent we have was the right choice or not .
One thing is for sure- those two relatively unreliable sources of clean energy will never be as price competitive as the other options we have talked about. Nor will we be able to solely depend on them when peak demand occurs.
Go figure.
"Is this the same Ewan McGregor who scoffed at my earlier suggestion that we could easily satisfy our future needs by building and continue to build hydro dams in relatively unpopulated conservation land (mountainous regions in both islands)"
Indeed, it is.
Post a Comment