The ACT Party has released its energy policy for the coming election and says it will eliminate bureaucratic red tape which only makes everything more expensive.
Among its pledges is repeal of the ban on new prospecting for oil and gas in the ocean, which was passed by the Government in 2018.
It notes New Zealand’s natural gas reserves have dropped below 10 years’ supply for the first time since the 1970s, and says this is dangerous because gas will be needed until 2050.
“The ban on oil and gas exploration was a costly mistake," ACT says.
"It made for great headlines, but it was poorly thought out and means New Zealand is now further away from carbon-efficient electricity generation."
It adds the shortage of gas means in fact New Zealand burnt more coal.
ACT has also pledged to block the $16 billion dollar pumped hydro scheme proposed for Lake Onslow in Central Otago.
This is one of several options to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing and the dams are empty.
But ACT says the project scores “poorly on value for money and affordability criteria.
“Not only is this costly project reducing the appetite for the private sector to invest in solutions to increase electricity reliability, but the taxpayer will ultimately bear the cost for the government’s poor decision-making.”
ACT says it would not allow the Lake Onslow project to proceed as a government project, but would not object if a private operator wants to do it.
ACT also speaks in favour of the principle of Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS), which involves keeping CO2 (carbon dioxide) out of the atmosphere by storing it in underground caverns such as depleted gas fields.
The party calls it a “promising technology” that has “not been evaluated fairly and expeditiously.
“ACT would remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and …. the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) should be amended to make CCUS a recognised removal activity.”
ACT also wants a fast tracked consenting programme for offshore wind turbines.
And it wants to remove the concept of Te Mana o te Wai from resource consenting. It says this requires international investors to understand Māori spiritual concepts such as “Mauri” or life-force, and it only adds uncertainty to energy projects.
It says the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management issued in February requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management.
The party says this would make the consenting of hydro schemes much more complex.
“ACT would remove Te Mana o te Wai from resource consenting,” it says, but it would retain Māori water rights granted by an existing treaty settlement.
ACT says New Zealand is able to have both a thriving energy sector and a sustainable environment for future generations.
“Red tape is inhibiting innovative solutions to New Zealand’s most pressing energy and environmental challenges,” it says.
“Our energy and resources policy settings should be fuel and technology neutral.
“The ETS should be the primary tool for addressing the issue of energy emissions. This should not be a controversial position.”
The party adds it is important to make electricity cheaper – it is too dear now and is forecast to get worse.
32 Comments
If we look forward to what our possible future looks like, outside of your permanently replayed "we gonna runs out of the dino juice" scenario, there's a just-as-likely possibility of the global trade and supply routes, which we take as a given, may become less and less secure in future, either through geopolitical, or climate disruption. From all appearances, either is just as likely in the next 50 years as a global fossil fuel shortage.
In either scenario, the people of New Zealand will still require energy, and it's unlikely we will develop significant non-fossil fuel alternatives in the timeframe.
On such a basis, it'd be prudent to secure domestic energy supplies. So something like this is worthy of some consideration.
If you can break yourself from your singular religion.
Not really PDK, if NZ went to zero emissions tomorrow it would make zero difference to climate change. Even if everyone vanished from NZ and the whole place turned into Kauri forests, still no difference. If the resources are there we may as well use them, if we don't the next generation will so what's the difference ?
Zwifter,
Indeed. Our total emissions(CO2e) are less than 0.20% of still rising global emissions. Nothing we could do would move the global dial. Our entire economy depends on stuff dug up-mined- or extracted from the ground, but we want to be Simon Pure. Let other countries dirty their hands, but not us.
However, just how long would it take to get any oil exploration rigs down here and in place? There had been exploration previously but without success. Even if a commercially viable find was made, how long would it take to start producing. A decade? Longer?
If we are going to transition to a low carbon economy, we cannot do so without mining-lots and lots of it and that means using ffs to extract, refine and distribute all the metals and minerals. Of course, the supply is not infinite and even if we get much better at recycling, then without technological miracles like widespread low-cost fusion reactors, we will in time have to do less with less.
That's an indicator of fact?
Read my piece, re remaining time to transition:
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/124050/murray-grimwood-assesse…
That answers the 'we will need it ourselves' comment upthread, also; we don't even have a refinery anymore. Delusion, compounded.
it is already happening Southern Green Hydrogen | Meridian Energy
Meridian is part of a project that is investigating the opportunity to build the world’s largest green hydrogen facility in Southland.
We are investigating the opportunity to build one of the world’s largest scale green hydrogen facility in Southland. Green hydrogen (hydrogen produced using all or virtually all renewable electricity) is a clean fuel which can be used to replace fossil fuels in a range of uses, including land transport, shipping, industrial processes and electricity generation.
Simple answer is to put an ever increasing carbon tax on every ton of coal imported for Huntly, and ditto for the gas extracted from taranaki. Perhaps the carbon credits market needs to be killed, and the govt just dictates the price with a nice clear multiyear schedule.
CCS has always required too much energy - so we've never done it.
They're demonstrating energy-blindness.
And remember that energy underwrites money, so what are you 'taxing', and what will it be 'spent' on?
https://www.financialsense.com/contributors/chris-martenson/the-trouble…
Has the removal of new exploration permits really had such a quick turn around effect on gas supply?
There are currently 31 active exploration permits in New Zealand, 22 of which are offshore. These permits cover an area of 100,000 sq kms, nearly the size of the North Island. The last of these ends in 2030. However if a new discovery is made, a new mining permit may have a duration of up to 40 years. There are also 27 existing producing fields, some of which could last to 2050.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-04/Fact_sheet_oil%…
Not researched. Little or no gas at the right price and length of time for Huntly, hence coal imports. As a rider Huntly maybe shutting down over time in any event due to age. Suspect influence of govt is keeping it open for longer in order to avoid rolling blackouts, even if they have to use coal. Similarly for Methanex saying open. The govt source you point out is likely to be questionable, especially "some of which could last to 2050"
Stupidity. Not even logical. at this late stage.
Please read that link to my op/ed - lead-times are short to non-existent; fossil energy is finite, and we would be in the sad place of selling a resource we can't process or use (gas aside, maybe) here. That puts us in the situation of Iraq, Nigeria - excellent.
Not.
Adern's politically motivated ban on offshore petroleum exploration in New Zealand never resulted in our country using less in the way of fossil fuels. All it means is that we will now produce less hydrocarbons to offset our imported petroleum products. Another example of her imfamous 'gesture politics'.
What if there aren't any other readily accessible large oil and gas fields near us?
Edit. More info here... https://www.nzpam.govt.nz/nz-industry/nz-petroleum/resource-potential/
See the 2 pdf links
Well, if no-one looks then absolutely nothing will be found. Anyway, to simply look would not cost NZ taxpayers anything because all exploration costs would be borne by the licensed explorers.
As I indicated in my earlier comment, reduced domestic production does not translate into reduced domestic consumption. Maintaining our own domestic production to whatever extent possible would at least partially offset our imported product consumption, thus helping our balance of payments. Certainly, it needn't stop NZ from working towards its own renewable energy goals. At the very least, we would know that whatever petroleum production NZ does provide comes via the highest possible industry environmental standards. I doubt that the refined product that we now import will always have had a production origin under similar environmental considerations. For example, many countries still produce their crude oil by allowing its associated dissolved gas to be simply flared straight off into the atmosphere. This is especially so if the gas-oil ratio of that crude makes it uneconomic to capture the gas component. NZ does not allow such flaring above a certain minimal volume.
i agree with ACT on lake onslow and it will not be 16 b try doubling that amount.
there are solutions and new generation being developed now so huntly will be closed down sooner that most think,
List of power stations in New Zealand - Wikipedia
we have solar farms going up in the far north Far North Solar Farm - New Zealand's First Solar Farm (fnsf.co.nz)
as well as a battery going in at Ruakākā Energy Park Ruakākā Energy Park | Meridian Energy
and batteries backup already in auckland
Someone mentioned rising the lake of Manapouri ? Looking at the maps , for sure if we convent lake te anau , moved the town and pushed that way higher , then we closed down a silly aluminium smelter we could have a SHIT LOAD of energy right there... just saying , why is this not possible?
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.