Ian Bradford: The Energy Source of the Future - Nuclear, Not Wind and Solar

Policy No Brainer: New Finnish Government Backs Grand Nuclear Power Expansion

Finland gets it, and has done for decades. Nuclear power is the largest source of energy in Finland, with a current capacity of 2,794 Mega Watts. To which another 1,600 MW is about to be added when the new third reactor at Olkiluoto is commissioned soon.

No doubt prompted by the suicidal wind and solar obsession playing out across Germany, the incoming Finnish Government has announced that the first order of business is expanding Finland’s nuclear power generation capacity as soon as humanly possible.

Point of Order: It’s not easy being Green

Fancy that, Germany has co-governance too. But they do things differently over there.

Can you imagine a government made up of ACT, Labour and Greens? As a fresh replacement for an eternal National – Labour coalition? Welcome to Berlin.

But some things always stay the same. The Greens have a problem understanding power and compromise.

Stuart Smith: Platitudes Should Not Drive Energy Policies

Last week I reaffirmed that National is committed to net zero by 2050 and announced that we will reverse the offshore oil and gas exploration ban should we be successful at the next election.

I also announced that we would not pursue a 100 per cent renewable electricity target, nor would a National Government build a pumped hydro scheme at Lake Onslow.

The oil and gas exploration ban has had far reaching effects for New Zealand. We were considered a low sovereign risk nation in which to invest: the ban changed that significantly.

Clive Bibby: The energy giant we dare not speak its name

One thing farmers learn quicker than anything else when dealing with climate change is that your survival will depend primarily on decisions that are based on what we know to be true.

Most of the reliable data used when planning for a changing environment will be gleaned from historical records that give clear indications of the likely success of any mitigating scheme introduced that includes the lessons learned from past severe events. It’s just common sense but it usually works better than placing all our eggs in a basket of relatively unknown alternatives.

So it is with the nation’s search for reliable clean energy alternatives that will enable us to eliminate the traditional reliance on a mix that includes coal fired power stations.

It would appear that those who make the decisions on the alternatives we can choose from have been given clear instructions from our political masters that large scale hydro schemes are not on that list in any shape or form. More's the pity!

Frank Newman: Power blackout - Government solution: more regulation

How comic to see the shrill finger-pointing by Labour's front bench.

"It's them, them...the exploitative power company monopolies...they are the villains...not us".

And of course, they assured us that only they can put the problem right.

How predictable. The socialists answer to every problem is more regulation, even when regulation is the problem! Ironic though that now they want the power companies to burn coal - last week they didn't!

Derek Mackie: Power outages due to cold weather - must be climate change!

Last night, while attending my weekly pub quiz, several of my team who work in the medical sector got text alerts from Waikato DHB warning of rolling blackouts across the region and the possible effects on services. These were quickly followed by texts from family members asking if we had lost power, like them. Luckily for us, lights in the pub stayed on and we finished our quiz. 

 According to TVNZ online news: Transpower New Zealand GM of operations Stephen Jay says demand for electricity is at an all-time high. "Insufficient generation has been made available to meet demand and manage a secure system," Jay said. 

"As a result, Transpower has asked the distribution companies to reduce load.” 

 Well, it was a chilly night in Hamilton but not as cold as a few weeks back. What was different this time was that a high pressure area was covering pretty much all of the country, leading to clear skies, calm conditions and the typical cold, frosty nights that result. 

Matt Ridley: Energy return on energy invested and the promise of fusion

 

Until 2004 Britain was a net energy exporter. Today, it imports about half its energy. Some of that, in the form of coal and liquefied natural gas, comes directly from Russia, which also supplies a third of Europe’s gas through pipelines. The unprecedented “gas deficit warning” of March 2 was a sharp reminder of our dependence on imports.

Yet Britain is swimming in energy. Enough sunlight falls on the country to power the economy many times over. Wind, wave, water and tidal power cascade over us. There is wood in our forests. There are hot rocks beneath Cornwall and Durham, gas under Lancashire and enough coal under the North Sea to last centuries. We could easily buy sufficient uranium to keep us going indefinitely. And if we were to crack nuclear fusion, all we would need is a little bit of water and some Cornish lithium.

Matt Ridley: In its energy policy, Britain keeps picking losers

Shortly before parliament broke up this month, there was a debate on a Lords select committee report on electricity policy that was remarkable for its hard-hitting conclusions. The speakers, and signatories of the report, included a former Labour chancellor, Tory energy secretary, Tory Scottish secretary, cabinet secretary, ambassador to the European Union and Treasury permanent secretary, as well as a bishop, an economics professor, a Labour media tycoon and a Lib Dem who was shortlisted for governor of the Bank of England.

Genuine heavyweights, in short. They were in general agreement: energy policy is a mess, decarbonisation has been pursued at the expense of affordability and, in particular, the nuclear plant at Hinkley Point C in Somerset is an expensive disaster. Their report came out before the devastating National Audit Office report on Hinkley, which said the government had “locked consumers into a risky and expensive project [and] did not consider sufficiently the risks and costs to the consumer”.