Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
"See, another side effect of the vaccine" some of the resident cookers probably.The Post
www.thepost.co.nz
Has someone set themselves on fire on parliament grounds this morning?
classic energy logical fallacy, let me explain.
The marginal cost to produce and deliver that 20% of the power you still require is basically the same as providing you 100%. Ergo power companies need to extract the same amount of revenue from that 20% as they did for your 100%. Then it gets worse. Because you are only using 20% of the utility, the provider needs to shore up profit margins, it does that against inflexible consumers, ie poor people and businesses.
TLDR Solar is very good for the individual at the point of consumption, it is terrible for national grid stability.
NZWarriors.com
Sure the energy company needs to make enough to run but if everyone could generate 80% of their needs then there is less stress on the grid, less need for coal, less need for so many energy companies, less risk of a single outage taking out multiple homes.
Also good for me as power at my place is dodgy asf, after the flood last year was no power for a week.
So ur kinda right if we want the same number of energy companies taking billions in profits off us as now, it's inefficient,full of risk and costly as it is now.
Incorrect assumption yet again. Solar is intermittent by nature. That 80% is an average, at times you will need zero energy from the grid and at times you will need 100%. At times you will be producing up to 10x your own consumption at precisely the same time as everyone else is.
So now you require reserve generation that can be switch up to 100% and down to zero when required. Thats called gas peaking and its incredibly expensive, nearly the most expensive. 100% of its costs + profit must be recouped from that 20% of usage.
Transmission costs make up 30% of your bill. Once again that's a fixed cost; the grid exists and must be maintained 100% of the time. So 100% of that cost must also be recouped from the 20%.
Energy companies are already planning for peaking by installing large batteries and working on models for releasing hydro at different times to offset that.
On top.of that our home energy requirements are increasing and population is growing and the power needs for business are also increasing. Who is investing in infrastructure to support these growing demands if we don't do it at the household level? I sure don't expect the power companies who are mainly interested in profit to do that effectively.
NZWarriors.com
That "mainly interested in profit" gave you the exact standard of living you enjoy today. It gave you the cheapest units of energy man has ever enjoyed on this planet, until politics got involved. Please explain how storing excess energy and then selling at the point of highest demand aka price, will do anything but drive the price stratospheric.
Ive been down this path, I was you making these arguments 5 years ago. But they are all made in ignorance at worst, or "self evident" truths at best. But when you dig through empirical data, the truth shows.
Why does South Australia have the highest retail energy prices in Australia?
Why does California have the highest retail energy prices in America?
Why does Germany have such higher prices and high emissions?
Why does France have such low prices and low emissions?
I have no doubt it will be revealed that the figures went down because National cut them off the books, threw them out. Or they're claiming Labour's wins.
www.nzherald.co.nz
Government: Households living in emergency housing down 32% over six months
'Auckland has experienced one of the biggest improvements.'
Where have they gone? Answer that and we know who to blame or applaud, otherwise it's just a useless stat but a good soundbite.I have no doubt it will be revealed that the figures went down because National cut them off the books, threw them out. Or they're claiming Labour's wins.
Government: Households living in emergency housing down 32% over six months
'Auckland has experienced one of the biggest improvements.'
NZWarriors.com
Assume they have been palmed off to other social housing providers who will be getting some subsidy from the Govt
How do they achieve it?
NZWarriors.com
We've probably got 10-15 new homeless (sleeping on sidewalks and eating out of the bins) in Whakatane over the last couple months. So I can tell you what the govt has done to a few of them.I have no doubt it will be revealed that the figures went down because National cut them off the books, threw them out. Or they're claiming Labour's wins.
Government: Households living in emergency housing down 32% over six months
'Auckland has experienced one of the biggest improvements.'
- Thread starter
- #9,995
According to the article:
‘Potaka said from emergency housing, around half of people went into some form of social housing and about 30% accessed an accommodation supplement indicating they went on to private accommodation. He said it was “uncertain” where the remaining 20% of people went after they left emergency housing.’
NZWarriors.com
I’m confused…. not that it’s too hard to do that.
The previous Government wanted to bring in a law allowing Councils to charge congestion charges at certain times of the day but National opposed it because it was “inflationary”…. something Labour denied.
Now Simeon Brown has announced that the new government is going to introduce a bill allowing congestion charges but Labour are opposing it saying it’s inflationary…. which National are denying.
Isn’t it amazing how something isn’t inflation when you’re in Government but is inflationary when you are in opposition.
Personally, I don’t mind tolls or congestion charges on public roads provided all the revenue gathered is used to subsidise public transport and used for roading infrastructure. Dallas have a system where tolls on freeways/expressways during peak travel is used to pay of extensions to their freeway/expressway systems and the bulk of the extensions are self funding.
The previous Government wanted to bring in a law allowing Councils to charge congestion charges at certain times of the day but National opposed it because it was “inflationary”…. something Labour denied.
Now Simeon Brown has announced that the new government is going to introduce a bill allowing congestion charges but Labour are opposing it saying it’s inflationary…. which National are denying.
Isn’t it amazing how something isn’t inflation when you’re in Government but is inflationary when you are in opposition.
Personally, I don’t mind tolls or congestion charges on public roads provided all the revenue gathered is used to subsidise public transport and used for roading infrastructure. Dallas have a system where tolls on freeways/expressways during peak travel is used to pay of extensions to their freeway/expressway systems and the bulk of the extensions are self funding.
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
It’s not even opposing parties, we now have millions of dollars poured down the drain because national now decides to scrap the Christchurch cathedral restoration after national previously decided to persevere with it. To think all these years later that place still isn’t completely rebuilt is unfathomable. The money wasted by incoming and outgoing governments and previous ones with the scrapping of things after substantial taxpayer money has been poured in needs some sort of bipartisanship going forward or it will continue to be mass wastage
I didn’t think any government should provide anymore money for the restoration… actually, I think we’ve provided too much already. Through all their leasehold properties in green leaf suburbs like St Johns and Parnell, the Anglican Church has more than enough funds to pay for the restoration…. it’s just that the Auckland Synod are unwilling to share it’s tax free wealth.
Edit: looking at an article, the government aren’t willing to fund the shortfall of $60mil for the restoration of the cathedral. The Auckland Synod, according to their 2023 report has over $90 mil. in managed funds and investment properties. The “cash strapped” Christchurch Synod has over $7 mil in managed funds.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Politics
🤡 Donald Trump
