Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news that there is a surprise renewed jump in global shipping freight rates underway again.
But first, new US jobless claims rose last week. The headline seasonally adjusted rate "surged" to +231,000 and up from +209,000 the prior week. But the actual number of new claims was only 209,000. It rose too, but it is too soon to conclude this is a new trend. There are 1.75 mln people on these benefits, which is a decrease from last week. But it is up from 1.66 mln a year ago. The current level is tiny compared to their employed workforce of 161 mln people.
But the headline "surge" has had echoes in currency and bond markets today.
There was a UST 30yr bond auction earlier today successfully raising US$25 bln (so much smaller than yesterday's 10 year event). It was heavily supported with median yields slipping to 4.59% from 4.61% at the prior equivalent event a month ago. We are no longer reporting rising yields.
China's exports rose to a three month high in April, but basically only back to the general monthly level of the past year. The rise looks good only in the perspective of the past two months. Overall their exports rose +1.5% from the same month a year ago. But this masks some quite big moves. Exports to the US fell -1.0%, to the EU they were down -4.8%. To Japan down -9.2%. to New Zealand they were down -2.0% and Australia down -7.7%. But they rose +21% to Brazil, +20% to Vietnam, +7% to Malaysia although to be fair the dollar values of these increases were not high. Interestingly Chinese exports to Russia slipped -1.9%, and to India were little-changed.
Overnight, the Bank of England maintained its key bank rate at 5.25%, as expected. However, two committee members preferred to reduce the rate by -25 bps, compared to only one member in the prior meeting. Further, officials revised down their inflation forecast and raised the growth outlook. Those projections foresee a decline in their policy rate to 3.75% over the next three years.
There was an unexpected rise in global freight rates for containerised cargoes last week, up +16% in the week, principally on outbound rates from China. These rates are now a massive +80% higher than the same week a year ago. The rise will affect other trade routes globally. Meanwhile, bulk cargo rates rose +30% last week as well although they are "only" 57% higher than year ago levels. It is not clear why rates have jumped in the past week so suddenly but it may relate to renewal of time charter rates after the first flush of increases after the Panama and Suez Canal stresses that just are not easing.
It is cold nationwide this morning. After yesterday's Transpower warning, we should note that as we write this, electricity prices are only marginally elevated indicating a normal situation so far, and not the extreme stress we saw two days ago.
The UST 10yr yield is now at 4.46% and down -3 bps from yesterday. The key 2-10 yield curve inversion is little-changed at -36 bps. And their 1-5 curve inversion is now still at -67 bps. Their 3 mth-10yr curve inversion is now at -92 bps and 2 bps deeper. The Australian 10 year bond yield is now at 4.38% and +1 bp firmer from yesterday. The China 10 year bond rate is is back up to 2.33%, a +2 bps rise. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is now at 4.80% and up +7 bps from yesterday.
Wall Street is ending its Thursday trade up +0.5% in late trade on the S&P500. Overnight, European markets with Frankfurt up +1.0% but London up only +0.3% toi bookend their sessions. Yesterday Tokyo ended down -0.3%. Hong Kong rose +1.2% while Shanghai rose +0.8%. Singapore ended essentially unchanged. The ASX200 was down -1.1% in its Thursday trade and the NZX50 slipped another -0.3%.
The price of gold will start today up +US$19 from yesterday at US$2333/oz.
Oil prices have risen +50 USc at just under US$79/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is unchanged, now just under US$83.50/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar starts today up +¼c from yesterday at just under 60.3 USc. Against the Aussie we are softish at 91.1 AUc. Against the euro we are little-changed at 55.9 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today just under 69.6 and again marginally firmer from yesterday.
The bitcoin price starts today at US$61,901 and down -1.1% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been modest at just on +/- 1.7%.
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
214 Comments
The electricity load is about 65MW lower than yesterday mainly because South Island is lower. See:https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-dat…
Power capacity issues are a byproduct of the years of gloating by finance ministers over our low levels of public debt. Non investment helps bring that about but the consequences are households now expected to turn their heaters off because we've added a couple million people and don't have the infrastructure to cope.
There's definitely some benefit. Our relative austerity over the past few decades means our government's now not paying extremely large amounts of interest. Unlike say the States, who're spending more on interest than they do on defense - and the amount they spend on defense is crazy.
I really don't think most militant greenies are aware of the financial and lifestyle costs to follow through with their desires.
At least the boomer generation yielded a decent cadre of hippies who eschewed modern life, and got in to minimalist communal living. But then in the 80s they morphed into the most capitalist bastards the world's ever seen.
I made an observation.
You've made it a career.
Regardless, the hippies at least managed to form active groups, sharing resources and eschewing consumerism.
The answers are all there for the newer generations. Housing is expensive and modern life is wasteful. Band together, buy some land to live on and work.
Less talky, more dooey.
Perhaps not aware how many folk are sharing housing these days...? Or embracing minimalism vis-a-vis stuff.
I merely pushback on the prevalent norm of older welfare recipients waving fists and yelling "socialist" at younger generations who receive far less. Walking the talk, etc.
And against the common garden variety stereotyping of folk suggesting improving sustainability, a la https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat
Perhaps not aware how many folk are sharing housing these days...? Or embracing minimalism vis-a-vis stuff.
I'm aware people are living at home for longer, and the minimalism trend, yes.
I'm less aware of concerted group efforts to forge their own way by pooling their own resources, rather than demanding the state continue to provide the same sub-nuclear family living that's shown to be ultimately unsustainable.
100 people, block of land, commercial kitchen and laundry, shared living spaces. Immensely more efficient. Except you'd be hard pressed to have enough people share the consensus.
I'm a millennial (throws up a bit in mouth).
Renewables are getting the lion's share of growth, because politics is dictating that's where much of subsidies are going (while also financially penalizing fossil fuel use, and discouraging fossil fuel development). But the low hanging fruit are mostly plucked, and getting to 100% will either be a) hideously expensive, or b) require a rather substantive decline in living standards (likely both).
Low hanging fruit mostly picked...what are you on about?
The easiest gains get made first (i.e. solar where there's the most sun, turbines where there's the most wind). So there's diminishing returns the more you do.
My views are split all over the place. I try to take positions based on individual consideration, rather than succumbing to any particular groupthink.
Agree on diminishing returns but NZ, being a mountainous country surrounded by ocean and in the roaring forties, has wind resources that are the envy of the world.
South Taranaki Offshore Wind is a 900MW offshore wind project to be located off the south coast of Taranaki region of New Zealand.
It will utilise fixed bottom offshore wind technology and provide new capacity to New Zealand’s electricity system - equivalent to powering over 430,000 homes. With a world class wind resource, access to a skilled and experienced workforce and proximity to existing energy transmission infrastructure, South Taranaki Offshore Wind will help decarbonise the local industrial ecosystem, power New Zealand into a net zero future and support the growth of energy intensive industries in the Taranaki region.
Sounds like it came straight from their marketing blurb. Wonder what sort of subsidies they're asking for. Think of a big number and double it. I'll be with the anti wind brigade. Whale problems for starters. No unreliables. But wait maybe we could use it for "green" hydrogen and get free electricity for use to convert water into hydrogen.
Do you think we are subsidising the wind generation that's being installed right now? The gentailers are building it because it's the cheapest option and they want to make money - no subsidy required. We're even attracting overseas capital that wants to build solar plants here (maybe wind too? Not sure on that), because it is profitable without subsidy.
You could make an argument around the cap and trade scheme, but I'll let you make that case if you're actually aware of the details.
"wind resources that are the envy of the world." Apart from two days ago when they were running at 2% capacity and we had to find 1100MW from the back of the couch.. The more wind we build the more expensive idling backup we need - and don't mention the transmission costs.
Wind currently at 13% capacity - https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/live-system-and-market-dat…
So wind generation was 2% because you believe profile confused weather with climate?
Backup do not have to idling hydrocarbons - but whatever you choose has a capital, resource and running cost - and has to be able to kick in when the wind/sun disappear. Intermittent energy is a nice toy the rest of the economy has to pay dearly for.
Lets got nuclear then then you won't have to wring your hands about "fossil fuels" and we won't need to spend any money on windmill and solar backup and you will get some free process heat as a bonus. "Climate change" costs are always some vague time in the future, to keep the gravy train running, whereas stupid climate policy has to be paid for now.
Because the cost to discount fuel is significantly less than the cost to totally replace FF powered electricity generation and transport, not to mention it'd take decades (if possible).
Say 2 years ago, the government didn't reduce fuel tax by 25 cents a litre or whatever, and instead just decided to replace our entire vehicle fleet.
- a million or so vehicles
- the charging network
- increased electricity generation capacity
- probably can't replace most of the commercial fleet
They are consumer subsidies so the poor can afford fuel. Like free school lunches - complete with subsequent waste "free" stuff brings.
"Indonesia’s government provides generous fuel and electricity subsidies to support poorer households and spur economic development by keeping prices low. These subsidies started under the Suharto regime (1966-1998) when Indonesia still had significant domestic oil reserves. However, since the 1990s, Indonesia’s domestic oil production has fallen while demand for oil and electricity has skyrocketed.
As a result, energy subsidies have reached up to 2 percent of Indonesia’s total GDP. Furthermore, these subsidies primarily benefit wealthier Indonesians. The World Bank notes that Indonesia’s middle and upper class “consume between 42 and 73 percent of subsidized diesel.”
https://thediplomat.com/2024/02/indonesias-fossil-fuel-subsidies-threat…
Mr Rick will have more to complain about today. The news today says the elderly are struggling and they need to have a boost in government funded super when they reach 80 (not means tested either).
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350266078/aged-kiwis-only-just-survivin…
Younger people are going to have to work harder if this comes to fruition, which I doubt.
Those of us who are thinking ahead have reduced electrical demand by building/improving the energy efficiency of our homes. I went all in and built a Passive House so I woke up to 20 degrees this morning without heating and now the sun is up, it is 22 degrees inside. On the rare occasions I need to add some heat, I can do at 3am when power is cheapest/most available as I know the heat will remain in the house.
You're not going to get much solar generation at 7am in May. Batteries are a possible solution to these demand spikes we get for an hour or two on cold days when people get up, and when they get home from work. Of course they need to be coupled with excess generation such as wind or solar at other times.
My battery was still at 16% at 8.30 this morning. Thus no use of grid power overnight. Assisting in this national crisis.
Also, over the longer term, I send three times as much electricity out the gate as I bring in. Again an assistance to the big picture.
Big generation is not the only way forward.
Was visiting someone on the West Coast not long ago. Beautiful spot. They'd recently retired from life in Auckland and had built a new home with solar (no batteries - capacitors only), multi-stage septic that only ever needed the filters cleaned, and rainwater system. Small 4 bed house with a big deck overlooking the ocean. Total cost was around 250-300,000 + land (must have been ~2018 prices). What was most impressive was how easy it all was - all systems basically modular with easy installation. Compared to another couple I'd visited on the coast some 10 years earlier who had settled off grid it sounded like an absolute breeze (and much more effective/convenient). Really gives me hope for the future of off grid living.
Edit: The savings from not connecting to utilities basically made it all a no-brainer
150MW/300 MWh Tesla Megapack system in Australia goes live
https://www.teslarati.com/edify-tesla-megapack-150mw-300mwh-system/
There are some batteries coming along here too, like the 100 MW / 200 MWh Ruakaka facility that should be on line by the end of the year
https://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/new-projects/ruakaka-energy-park
What power issues? No power issue,’ Transpower says, despite retailer’s message to Kiwis
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300327451/the-worst-decision-by-…
To be honest, don't know. How much extra capacity do we need to cover shortfalls, and how much solar/batteries can you get for 16 billion?
You could also potentially recoup some cost by the state going halvsies on the saved electricity costs for households who take up the scheme (i.e, government gives you say 10 grand towards solar and batteries, you save $200 a month on power but give half back until x amount is paid off).
"A recent Infrastructure Commission technical paper concluded that the proposed Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme can’t provide New Zealand with a cost advantage until 2037.
It also found that any advantage it does provide won’t be long-lasting “unless the cost to build it is substantially below $10 billion”.
That was before Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods announced via a Cabinet paper that the P50 cost estimate – a mid-range probability – for Onslow would be $15.9 billion."
"Long-term battery storage without over-build of wind & solar $28,000 million Source: Culy (2019b)"
It'd be Pooh poohed as boomer or middle class welfare
I think you'd be surprised how many boomers would vote for this to help lower output costs in their latter years so they could maintain a certain standard of living. They do, after all still have the greatest voter base.
Agree re better building and insulation. Family member recently built and moved in to a home with insulation rating of 7 in the roof, and 3.6 in the walls. North facing living areas are basically all glass. Both at work during the day. House is usually 20-22C when they return (usually 6.30-7pm). They use the wood fire 2-2.5hrs each night and in the morning the house is still 17C despite the frosts -5.6/-6 we have had here the last few mornings. Height of ceiling pitch in living area is 3.8m rest of house is standard ceiling height.
My Passive House in Christchurch was designed, built and tested to stay 20-25 degrees year round with minimal heating input. Electric bill was $80 for the year (we have 5kW of solar, no gas/wood and that includes charging an EV).
We had ice on the outside of our triple-glazed windows this morning (not enough heat gets out to defrost them). I am WFH today in T-shirt and shorts and others on the Teams calls this morning were in jumpers, puffer jackets and woolly hats.
We can and should build better.
My family member has limited financial means and the house is their first home. Their dream was a passive house but their reality was to well insulate instead, to make it a warm home, which they have achieved. They live rurally in Central Otago so it is useful to have a wood fire as power outages are not uncommon.(They (and others in their area) received an apology letter from Aurora Energy for exceeding the number of acceptable outages.
Solar yes, but batteries will come down in price over time and can be chalked down to personal choice still at this stage I feel. Australia still subsidises solar and people throw perfectly good ones away after upgrading 5 years after installation. They flick these panels off on gumtree etc for next to nothing.
If we all turn off power as asked we are simply enabling the government and suppliers to get away with not addressing our inadequate and failing commercial, competitive model. Manifestly it is not competitive and totally wrong for a small country not much larger than a city.
So go on and turn on everything you can crash the system and force the government and suppliers to run a robust and adequate system, otherwise we are just enabling them to dodge their responsibilities.
Well it would assist a bit if we had Manapouri contributing to the grid rather than supply power to smelt another country’s ore at a rate less than what NZ’s public pays for their power. Appreciate that ability has to be constructed but that would have to be cheaper than a new dam somewhere?
Pretty sure it's already in place. That excuse is years beyond right .
Just build a battery, you know like a high lake with heaps of head, call it onslow if you like.
Simeone scrapped any and all such work.
Edit Megan woods sounded positively plausible and knowledgeable compared with Simone.
This is what I don’t actually understand. The bauxite is shipped from Australia & processed by Rio Tinto at the smelter that they own along with Japanese interests. At what point does NZ get any ownership of the product or any share of the profits? Do the owners even pay tax?
... apparently it's all about the 800 jobs the smelter provides for Invergarglians... which is the reason that Rio has extorted a bargain price on electricity out of us for several decades ... John Key even gave them a $ 30 million gift , back in the day .... geeeez , he was such a doofus as PM ...
Tiwai has 800 on the payroll. Likely many more downstream, either as direct suppliers and service contractors, as well as all the surrounding business the employees and contractors spend money at.
That's not to say subsidizing Tiwai is revenue neutral or positive, but that the benefits extend further than just those on payroll.
Good Lord, just shut it down already...
We need a government that understands supply side reform. Shut that white elephant down and focus on industry that is NZ owned and competitive without these enormous subsidies - consuming a vital resource at a huge discount no less.
well its not the govt's to shut down - and if they can do a deal with a power company that works for them then they can/will carry on operating
They did however manage to con millions out of the Crown some years ago - and maybe that should have come with a payback clause
Yeah Transpower manages to bilk $70 million/annum out of them for the 40km Invers-Bluff line. Those greedy public servants rorting the private sector.
"As all transmission costs are averaged out over the country, in effect NZAS, as a massive user, is subsidising the rest of the country.
The South Island, which generates the majority of the country's energy through renewable hydro, geothermal and wind, pays a disproportionate share.
Last year Pacific Aluminium (NZ), which holds Rio Tinto's 79% stake in Tiwai, reportedly paid $66million in transmission costs alone, three times its earnings of $22million off production of 340,000 tonnes of aluminium.
Southland's former Chamber of Commerce president Carla Forbes believes the smelter has been ''quietly overcharged'' nearly $200million for grid upgrades in the North Island over the past 10 years, during which time overall transmission costs have been hiked by 61% on the South Island."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/117895545/tiwai-smelt…
https://www.odt.co.nz/business/power-politics-aluminium-smelting
Not sure if they are/have fixed the SI to NI capacity to take Manapouri without the smelter. Bit of a chicken and egg situation. Upgrade the SI to NI transmission and then find Manpouri continues to supply the smelter or the next round of negotiation fail, the smelter pulls out but no SI to NI capacity to take Manapouri.This results in idle capacity for a few years, either on transmission or generation. Needs an executive decision or captain call of some description. That's unlikely.
A likely upshot is another subsidy for the smelter, Nat or Labour with Winnie on the sidelines saying look how many jobs we have saved and Invercargill won't be relegated to the back waters.
It's kinda tricky. It appears we want:
- massive increase in transport infrastructure
- more Drs and Nurses (with better pay)
- added power redundancy
- more government housing
- inflation adjusted income tax brackets (i.e. for most to pay less tax)
- less PAYE generating migrants
Hard to make that all compute. Some (many here) argue capital gains tax and removal of interest deductibility would solve the problem, I'm not sure it'd even touch the sides.
The pension bills are a preordained social contract, so not really worth mentioning (although you will, daily), unless there's the voter will to do anything about it. Except future voters likely won't want to remove those same rights for themselves (they'll likely want more).
Likewise with rent subsidies, no one will want to foot the rather massive bill for social housing. As it is, it's an extra $600 a week (amortized over 30 years) to make existing stock "healthy". Double that to provide a new place. For tenants who pay as low as 50 bucks a week.
It's all very good to highlight discrepancies, but it's another thing entirely to devise how you'd actually pay for what you want.
Nope it has been proven no matter the income the tax take does not cover the pension benefits received (you see people tend to also use more health services as well when older).
There is no way unless most the income was spent in massive gst & tax generating initiatives, hmm are wealthy retirees less likely to invest their wealth and more likely to spend it all on cigarettes before it pays for housing? (it would also have the duel benefit of shortening the period of retirement paid out and reducing the period of extra health spending, where our care for those with respiratory conditions is so bad death early is likely)
"Encouraging smoking is a great idea, revenue positive."
No, the recent report proves it will cost more. Even taking into account that we will kill more people earlier than they need to die.
I don't understand why those that support the smoking repeal based on the fact that we will save some super payments because old people will die earlier don't just propose euthanasia at 65, it would save us loads of mullah. And it should be universal because you know super is universal.
Their jobs provide incomes and taxes that "cover" the "social contract". If they officially retired tomorrow, would these jobs disappear? No, somebody else would step up into the role, and carry on paying those taxes.
About time the old people dropped the arrogance and entitlement mentality. They're much more replaceable than they think. Yes, many possess decades of experience but if they/their industry were better prepared, they'd have a suitable replacement by the time they hit 65. When they eventually retire/kick the can, society will adapt.
Otherwise, why not just give subsidies to everyone? My PAYE will more than cover Working for Families, so I should be entitled to that. Same with Jobseeker benefit, I'm always looking on Seek for jobs so I am actively looking for work so where's my benefit?
I wouldn't be surprised to see sufficient voter will to introduce means testing on super, at least, in the next decade or so. That could be done at relatively short notice. Age of eligibility changes are inevitable but would likely be phased in over decades, limited benefit in the short term.
It's not the retirees with means that are the problem, it's the poverty stricken ones. If all retirees had means superannuation wouldn't be an issue. It could be looked at as just a tax reduction for older folk who contributed to society over a lifetime and are still contributing.
You see this quite differently to me. I don't see Super as a rewards scheme but as a safety net for those no longer able to work. From my perspective, subsidising a pensioner in a large home just so they don't have to sell or reverse mortgage it doesn't seem like a sensible use of money - let alone giving money to someone still earning a decent salary.
Eh, you were highlighting expensive bills while leaving out some of the biggest entitlement and waste.
The pension was part of a higher tax society where the old funded more for the younger too. An abandoned reciprocity, to fund tax cuts for themselves. Less divinely preordained than part of a reciprocal society at the time.
But regardless, we are discussing funding what we need vs what we want, and how to make that compute. Better to use property funding for supply side than demand side subsidies to enrich investment yields and enlarge wealth. And if we need to make things compute, we might need to look at property welfarism.
You missed out the part though where that was a growing population, with lower life expectancy.
Good news is, there's probably only another 10 years or so for that voter block to become more of a minority to enact some sort of alternative. Maybe all the surplus energy you have could go towards some sort of pragmatic political alternative.
ACT is apparently the party of the rich and entitled - people keep saying so here so it must be true right?
Yet was the party with the manifesto commitment to increase the super age of eligibility and in short order over next few years
I havent checked but I would assume this was kaiboshed by Winston and the grey hair team
Bernard Hickey today: "Genesis Energy is resuming coal imports because of gas shortages and a lack of investment in the last decade by (mostly) state-owned gentailers who have prioritised high profits, high dividends and capital returns over investment in (already consented) wind farms." Another John Key gift.
Right now our current solar generation is 46kw - install payback 5 years - so many businesses could do it themselves
then JA's nuclear free moment not so important
and actually we would be better off if we changed the name and role of the Climate Change Commisssion to the Energy Change Commission and put them together with the other Wellington energy gurus.
And all that incremental "Green" power demand added to system is supplied by incremental fossil fuel that is having to be added to the system. National are planning to open the flood gates on all fossil fuels. (To be fair Labors total failure to meaningfully address the issues left them no choice)
When you work through the efficiencies we are increasing carbon emissions. Our priorities are all to hell. The first priority is not electric cars or electricity generated industrial process heat, it is to get as close to 100% renewable annual energy supply with some (minimum) highly efficient combined cycle gas fired plants to deal with the small number of instances when the peak demand cannot be meet. Significant on an instantaneous basis but totally insignificant in the annual energy picture. Obviously when batteries make sense these are helpful. This tech is going ahead in leaps and bounds. Solar? Why the hell is this not being pushed as hard as possible. It is orders of magnitude faster to implement, distributed so transmission demands are less. Similarly load management. Given what we face, (200,000 new immigrants alone will add more load let alone all the EVs ) things are going to get a lot worse. I cannot see that any responsible government can allow the aluminum smelter to continue.
The problems that we face are too immediate and critical for a market force solution. Direct intervention is required.
Enjoy the rest of the winter. Next year will be worse.
I noted yesterday commentary on RNZ new that Chinese dairy out put is increasing to the level that their need for NZ's dairy products is starting to decline. Reminded me of discussion we had on this site years ago when it had been revealed the Fonterra was selling their technology overseas as well as livestock technology. I argued that they were setting up their future competitors in the name of short term gains. And here we are as it stats to come home to roost.. And they were paying their then CEO $5 million a year for that travesty!
No but Fonterra had developed their technology to be an acknowledged world leader in it at the time (don't know if it still is), and then they were selling it to the Chinese and the US (?) and setting up plants in Uruguay and Chile (?) as well as possibly other places.
I always believed successful long term business was about selling a product to customers not teaching them how to make it themselves!
I personally dont think that their "retrenchment" strategy back to NZ is/was the right one but I am not sitting in the hot seat
and if I was I would be looking at speeding up the value add strategy as the alternatives are looking more exposed by events outside of their (or NZ's) control
Hello Keith, I was wondering about your silence when I heard that news. I was interested in what you'd have to say about it.
Myth or perhaps the Chinese could see a synergy that mating or merging the different technologies would deliver to make it useful? However it happened there were articles reporting on Fonterra selling parts of their technology, so clearly the Chinese did see a need for it. But dairy technology also extends to the breeding of stock and as you indicate that did happen.
Prior to the 2018 ban there was no impediment to offshore exploration and yet no viable fields were found...it was noted long ago that our gas reserves would run out next decade.
Incentivise all you like...if it aint there (in sufficient quantity/quality) it wont be found.
It may also be worth considering the increased demand via (unplanned for)population growth.
Its not sunny and calm at 7-9am in the morning. Perhaps you missed the lack of sunlight but for many areas there was no solar generation (I have been keenly measuring UV levels and light pathways for chemical reaction testing). This morning it was and still is pretty dark. But hey if only we all had geothermal generation we could cause more ground sinkage & water issues around our homes eh. Or perhaps you can stand in front of my generator fans and blow more of that everydays sunny all the time stuff.
Yeah ideally we need a more distributed power network to accommodate more variation and transmission sources around the country. It is hard when we do not have the funds as a country because we shut down our more productive markets so we as a country cannot afford the massive cost increases and redevelopment needed.
Many families cannot even afford the massive power bill increases when companies are forced to do the bare minimum of maintenance to stop human deaths from failing equipment & infrastructure. See the Aurora scandal.
Can you post a link to the Aurora issues?
NZ struggles to understand the required maintenance cost of existing infrastructure. There is always something sexy or woke to spend the money on, Cycleways vs water pipes in WGTN is a good example.
As PWC would say - no point building new if you cannot even afford to maintain what you already have.
Cook straight ferries a good example and the replacement project a shambles.
The Wellington cycleways example is an excellent example of stupidity in action. They had choices:
i) Start fixing water infrastructure so that they don't lose half the water down the drain due to leaky pipes, and need water restrictions even though there is heaps of water.
ii) Make cycle ways hardly anyone uses (cycles do go on existing roads anyway too, always have).
Decision: - Build cycle ways, ruin businesses by taking parking away, continue with water restrictions, don't fix infrastructure (this is an actual council core responsibility). They should be sacked, right now.
Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 due to government support from surging energy prices.
Sources from the well known to be leftie greeny International Monetary Fund. Sarc/
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=B….
Also a reminder that that the only difference between Trump and some of the politicians here is that ours are a lot cheaper to buy.
There is a lot of money swooshing around to circulate climate disinformation and promote fossil fuel use in NZ. We're seen as a reasonably progressive country in terms of energy and an example other countries can aspire to, so the fossil fuel lobby target us. The recent rollback of EV subsidies and prohibition on NZTA considering climate change and emissions as part of their strategy as is just one example. Completely unjustified from an economic productivity point of view but processed to pay back big donations.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/m…
Agnostium you are going to have to chill - its a long time until the next election and likely even longer until the left are back
Subsidies are always distorting - you highlighted this in an earlier post where you set out the cost of fossil fuel subsidies - even the Saudis and Nigerian's have woken up to the negative impacts.
Who got the EV subsidy and who paid it - plenty in this region owned by the rich and famous and would have been purchased anyway
and a good reason for adjusting NZTA's mandate is that they are actually not very good at delivering the basics never mind asking them to consider climate change and emissions which in my view should not be their job anyway
Climate change isn't a left/right thing. I don't really care what party is in power, I only care about the policies they are putting in place and ensuring we don't go down the US/UK route to massive polarisation.
You can be right wing and care about climate change and the power of the fossil fuel lobby. Labour was also beholden to the trucking lobby and commitment to massive road building projects. A right-wing government should be more suspicious of these subsidies.
You are right climate change is not a left/right thing, it is a nothing. It's always been around and always will be, nothing can be done about it. What we have at the moment is a bunch of climate cult activists with their hands out for public money to fund their made up research and failed models. The climate cultists are responsible for things like increased insurance costs as insurance providers leverage of made up research to profit from the unsuspecting public.
Thanks for confirming you are a climate change denier. It at least puts your contribution on this forum on a similar vein to Profile's. We know you will criticise any solution because you don't actually believe there is a problem.
Hope your four kids are kind to you when they have to live through the consequences of your support for climate change denial narrative.
'never mind asking them to consider climate change and emissions which in my view should not be their job anyway'
Transport is one of our biggest emitters and in every climate change strategy is identified as the number one thing we can do to reduce emissions and address climate change commitments (in the absence of targetting agriculture).
So to say that the transport agency should not be looking at this is downright non-sensical. Who do you propose should be putting in emission reduction policies for transport if it isn't NZTA?
Encouraging purchases of EVs was a dumb idea anyway. Clearly they are not that useful, because we don't have the power infrastructure the proponents of them trumpeted. I guess that is why they are just about give aways on the second hard market now. A better technology will be along in a few year that will not dependent on energy that is not there.
If you are so into science then you should read this.
https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1499
NZ has on of the largest EEC to land mass on earth. NIWA already produced a report that concluded the the algae in NZs EEC zone already sequesters more carbon that NZ actually produces. So, if there is an actual issue, it is already solved.
The calculations of our net emissions are completely wrong, as these variables are not included....and there are more.
Interesting source to use to contradict the almost complete scientific consensus on human induced climate change.
Given your expert status at climate change commentary I assume you're across the IPCC reports, maybe you are an author?
Not being a scientist myself I tend to leave it to those guys who have trained and studied for it all their lives. I rely on my scientist friends to summarise the main findings for me.
From the FAQs
How is AZoCleantech funded?
AZoCleantech is financed by the site owner AZoM.com Pty. Ltd. (Sydney, Australia).
I represent a Supplier of Clean Technology; can I become an AZoCleantech expert?
Employees or the representatives of Clean Technology Related companies, consulting organisations or similar bodies can become AZoCleantech experts. The only cost to you is the payment of a US$200 listing fee
Please remember that AZoCleantech is heavily focused on providing examples of how Clean Technology can be used and not the fundamental science behind the technology
It is just one link. If you can't accept it, it's fine. Live in your angry world. Algae sequesters carbon 400x faster than trees. We have one of the biggest carbon sinks in the world (Fiordland National Park). We have a massive amount of ocean containing loads of Algae in our EEC. Did you go to school, maybe do math ? I will leave it you. The thing about scientists is that they are out to prove their hypothesis. More times that not, they are wrong. That is what makes science interesting, the pursuit of the truth. It is becoming clear that the calculations they they have been doing do not include all the variables, and so the answers are wrong. Just like the IPCC explains when they admit they are wrong, almost every year, and they change their forecasts. The complete scientific consensus is unravelling rather quickly, much like the complete scientific consensus on the Covid lab leak theory. The fact that it was a complete scientific consensus that is was not a lab leak, is now proven to be completely wrong. The complete scientific consensus on the lab leak we know now was a jack up to ensure that research funding was going to be still available for researching dangerous viruses. I saw many charts and graphs and commentary by scientists about the lab leak theory, which now turns out to be wrong. The scientists were worried that their funding for virus research would be taken away. Now where have we heard that before....
I never said anything about a counter-argument. I pointed out that if offsetting is what needs to be done (if there is a problem), that have significant offsets that more than offset our supposed emissions. If you want to walk away and continue to think that the sky will fall on your head, then that is entirely up to you.
Yes, at the moment. It will get progressively more expensive as we draw down the easy stuff. What do you think, 2-3 decades before business as usual doesn't work any more? Maybe that's generous.
What do you think for time required for a transition to some renewable fuel? 2-3 decades? Maybe that's optimistic.
If those numbers don't look crazy, when's a good time to start that transition?
Technology changes all the time. I don't have a home phone now, everyone used to have one, but technology has moved on. EVs are an attempt, a failed attempt as they have many shortcomings and so have no future for most uses. Hydrogen is the most likely replacement, and I know you will say that it requires fossil fuel to produce, but that is not really true. Nuclear power plants apparently pump out hydrogen like there is no tomorrow, as do many manufacturing processes, more will be found. Next you will say that the energy density of hydrogen is not good enough, and that is being solved too. There is a lot of research going into this energy source now, and if you research the developments in 5 stroke engine technology you will see that they have made hydrogen produce more energy than petrol. The are big advancements being made in the the conversion of existing ICE engines to run on hydrogen as well, patents being filed for this technology. So more than likely this is is going to be where it ends up. We will end up with a vehicle fleet of petrol/diesel/hydrogen ICE vehicles, and a small (may 10-15% ) fleet of electric and other fuels. EVs are useful in big cities where you don't have to drive very far, so that will be their niche going forward, if they are still around. The first hydrogen vehicles I think are due for sale in 2026. Even Ferrari is making a new Hydrogen ICE powered supercar.
I don't care if cars end up electric or hydrogen powered, whichever turns out most efficient on a grand scale. The important thing is we need to get moving away from petrol and fossil fuels in general, because we will eventually reach a point where there is insufficient fossil energy to boost us into that renewable world. Seems like the kind of thing we should take seriously given the survival of at least half the population of the world depends on fossil-fuel derived fertiliser.
Personally I see it as even better to remove the need for a car rather than change the type of car. A 2 car household moving to 1 car and 1 scooter, or e-bike, or regular bike, or public transport, is a huge and fairly easy win as the change required is mostly cultural rather than infrastructure.
Define expensive. Some people will always be able to afford petrol and as the price goes up the usage will drop and public transport will have to improve and more people will ride a bike like they do in parts of the world already that are covered in scooters. As the price continues to rise it will extend the availability. I would suggest at about $5 a litre people will find alternative transport and manufacturers will start producing much smaller, lighter ICE cars with 1000cc turbo engines. Petrol is clearly still cheap if most people can still afford to motor about in that 2 ton SUV.
Golly so many comments. Not surprising given we all know how to turn on a light so we must all be experts. ;-)
Then you'll also love this law ... Tad more subtle, but once you know about it, you can see it in human behavior everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_aversion
(Why my interest? Have I mentioned that using temporary tax changes is a far more efficient and fairer way to target inflation than using interest rates that simply transfer wealth from the have-nots to the haves?)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.