Lake Onslow looks like a good idea. For the South Island who probably don't need it! At $15 billion plus it's an economic as well as environment disaster but guess because we have the right horrible Woods fronting it it must be perfect! Funny how thisso called history scientist is forgetting history. What history you as? Labours history of failure!!! Hopefully we'll have new government later this year that won't include Labour, Greens or Te Poerangi party and this nonsense will be tossed!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131520734/minister-says-15b-lake-onslow-investment-decision-should-be-above-politics
Besides how can a pet Labour project be anything except Labour grandstanding a stupid idea!
On 2023-03-16, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:this so called history scientist is forgetting history. What history you as? Labours history of failure!!! Hopefully we'll have new government later this year that won't include Labour, Greens or Te Poerangi party and this nonsense will be tossed!
Lake Onslow looks like a good idea. For the South Island who probably don't need it! At $15 billion plus it's an economic as well as environment disaster but guess because we have the right horrible Woods fronting it it must be perfect! Funny how
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131520734/minister-says-15b-lake-onslow-investment-decision-should-be-above-politics
Besides how can a pet Labour project be anything except Labour grandstanding a stupid idea!Rob Muldoon, Think Big. It's all his fault.
Lake Onslow looks like a good idea. For the South Island who probably don't need it! At $15 billion plus it's an economic as well as environment disaster but guess because we have the right horrible Woods fronting it it must be perfect! Funny how thisso called history scientist is forgetting history. What history you as? Labours history of failure!!! Hopefully we'll have new government later this year that won't include Labour, Greens or Te Poerangi party and this nonsense will be tossed!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131520734/minister-says-15b-lake-onslow-investment-decision-should-be-above-politics
Besides how can a pet Labour project be anything except Labour grandstanding a stupid idea!
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesso called history scientist is forgetting history. What history you as? Labours history of failure!!! Hopefully we'll have new government later this year that won't include Labour, Greens or Te Poerangi party and this nonsense will be tossed!
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Lake Onslow looks like a good idea. For the South Island who probably don't need it! At $15 billion plus it's an economic as well as environment disaster but guess because we have the right horrible Woods fronting it it must be perfect! Funny how this
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131520734/minister-says-15b-lake-onslow-investment-decision-should-be-above-politics
Besides how can a pet Labour project be anything except Labour grandstanding a stupid idea!
When I see a Minister advocating that a huge public spend be 'above
party politics' I see stupidity at the highest levels. With that
logic why bother with business case? Why bother with actually
working out how much it will cost before we get started?
On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:03:54 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>this so called history scientist is forgetting history. What history you as? Labours history of failure!!! Hopefully we'll have new government later this year that won't include Labour, Greens or Te Poerangi party and this nonsense will be tossed!
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lake Onslow looks like a good idea. For the South Island who probably don't need it! At $15 billion plus it's an economic as well as environment disaster but guess because we have the right horrible Woods fronting it it must be perfect! Funny how
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131520734/minister-says-15b-lake-onslow-investment-decision-should-be-above-politics
Besides how can a pet Labour project be anything except Labour grandstanding a stupid idea!
When I see a Minister advocating that a huge public spend be 'abovePerhaps if you had actually red the article rather than just the
party politics' I see stupidity at the highest levels. With that
logic why bother with business case? Why bother with actually
working out how much it will cost before we get started?
burble from John Bowes you would be pleased to see that the Minister
agrees with you -
"Woods announced on Thursday that the Cabinet had agreed to draw up a detailed business case for the possible pumped hydro scheme in central Otago."
and
"The executive director of BusinessNZ’s energy council, Tina Schirr,
said the dry-year problem and demand peaks were serious issues for the sector that need to be addressed.
But she said it was important the Government considered options that
were “modular, decentralised and spread risk across the country to
build resilience".
Onslow carried a huge price tag for a solution that “wasn’t modular
and won’t deliver in the next few years”, she said."
and
"The Cabinet’s decision to give the green for a detailed business case
at a cost of about $70m brings it closer to reality, but a report by
the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment indicated there
would be no final investment decision until around the end of 2026."
and
"Woods announced that the Government would at the same time also
continue investigating an alternative set of power-storage initiatives
which would cost an estimated $13.5b to develop but which she said
would come with higher running costs.
That alternative plan could see a smaller pumped hydro scheme built on
the Upper Moawhango in the central North Island, along with
investments in biomass-burning power stations, “flexible geothermal
energy and green hydrogen”.
Woods voiced hope at a select committee that the investment decision
could transcend party politics.
“This is a very serious, long-term asset that we'd be talking about.
The prudent thing is we have to find a solution and we have to do this
in a rigorous and methodical way that I think takes the politics out
of it,” she said."
Clearly purchasing coal and burning it is a very expensive way of
generating electricity. We do need to investigate and move forward on
other alternatives.
Their are different views; the National Party are blind to current
problems: "But National Party energy spokesperson Stuart Smith
suggested the idea Lake Onslow might go ahead was “tone deaf in the
middle of a cost-of-living crisis” and National would immediately
cancel the business case if it won the election.
He said Lake Onslow was “a return to the bad old days of expensive government investment in a well-functioning electricity market” and
said last week that any solution to the dry-year problem could be left
to the market to deliver."
but Business NZ are in favour: "The executive director of BusinessNZ’s energy council, Tina Schirr, said the dry-year problem and demand
peaks were serious issues for the sector that need to be addressed."
So the government are considering a business case rather than just
going ahead - just as you want, Crash.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:03:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>so called history scientist is forgetting history. What history you as? Labours history of failure!!! Hopefully we'll have new government later this year that won't include Labour, Greens or Te Poerangi party and this nonsense will be tossed!
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Lake Onslow looks like a good idea. For the South Island who probably don't need it! At $15 billion plus it's an economic as well as environment disaster but guess because we have the right horrible Woods fronting it it must be perfect! Funny how this
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131520734/minister-says-15b-lake-onslow-investment-decision-should-be-above-politics
Besides how can a pet Labour project be anything except Labour grandstanding a stupid idea!
When I see a Minister advocating that a huge public spend be 'above
party politics' I see stupidity at the highest levels. With that
logic why bother with business case? Why bother with actually
working out how much it will cost before we get started?
Perhaps if you had actually red the article rather than just the
burble from John Bowes you would be pleased to see that the Minister
agrees with you -
"Woods announced on Thursday that the Cabinet had agreed to draw up a >detailed business case for the possible pumped hydro scheme in central >Otago."
and
"The executive director of BusinessNZ’s energy council, Tina Schirr,
said the dry-year problem and demand peaks were serious issues for the
sector that need to be addressed.
But she said it was important the Government considered options that
were “modular, decentralised and spread risk across the country to
build resilience".
Onslow carried a huge price tag for a solution that “wasn’t modular
and won’t deliver in the next few years”, she said."
and
"The Cabinet’s decision to give the green for a detailed business case
at a cost of about $70m brings it closer to reality, but a report by
the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment indicated there
would be no final investment decision until around the end of 2026."
and
"Woods announced that the Government would at the same time also
continue investigating an alternative set of power-storage initiatives
which would cost an estimated $13.5b to develop but which she said
would come with higher running costs.
That alternative plan could see a smaller pumped hydro scheme built on
the Upper Moawhango in the central North Island, along with
investments in biomass-burning power stations, “flexible geothermal
energy and green hydrogen”.
Woods voiced hope at a select committee that the investment decision
could transcend party politics.
“This is a very serious, long-term asset that we'd be talking about.
The prudent thing is we have to find a solution and we have to do this
in a rigorous and methodical way that I think takes the politics out
of it,” she said."
Clearly purchasing coal and burning it is a very expensive way of
generating electricity. We do need to investigate and move forward on
other alternatives.
Their are different views; the National Party are blind to current
problems: "But National Party energy spokesperson Stuart Smith
suggested the idea Lake Onslow might go ahead was “tone deaf in the
middle of a cost-of-living crisis” and National would immediately
cancel the business case if it won the election.
He said Lake Onslow was “a return to the bad old days of expensive
government investment in a well-functioning electricity market” and
said last week that any solution to the dry-year problem could be left
to the market to deliver."
but Business NZ are in favour: "The executive director of BusinessNZ’s
energy council, Tina Schirr, said the dry-year problem and demand
peaks were serious issues for the sector that need to be addressed."
So the government are considering a business case rather than just
going ahead - just as you want, Crash.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 9:57:52 AM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:this so called history scientist is forgetting history. What history you as? Labours history of failure!!! Hopefully we'll have new government later this year that won't include Labour, Greens or Te Poerangi party and this nonsense will be tossed!
On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:03:54 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes ><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lake Onslow looks like a good idea. For the South Island who probably don't need it! At $15 billion plus it's an economic as well as environment disaster but guess because we have the right horrible Woods fronting it it must be perfect! Funny how
Nukes mate. Just wire up one of the Aussie subs. Give the greens something to scream abouthttps://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131520734/minister-says-15b-lake-onslow-investment-decision-should-be-above-politics
Besides how can a pet Labour project be anything except Labour grandstanding a stupid idea!
When I see a Minister advocating that a huge public spend be 'above >party politics' I see stupidity at the highest levels. With thatPerhaps if you had actually red the article rather than just the
logic why bother with business case? Why bother with actually
working out how much it will cost before we get started?
burble from John Bowes you would be pleased to see that the Minister agrees with you -
"Woods announced on Thursday that the Cabinet had agreed to draw up a detailed business case for the possible pumped hydro scheme in central Otago."
and
"The executive director of BusinessNZ’s energy council, Tina Schirr, said the dry-year problem and demand peaks were serious issues for the sector that need to be addressed.
But she said it was important the Government considered options that
were “modular, decentralised and spread risk across the country to
build resilience".
Onslow carried a huge price tag for a solution that “wasn’t modular and won’t deliver in the next few years”, she said."
and
"The Cabinet’s decision to give the green for a detailed business case at a cost of about $70m brings it closer to reality, but a report by
the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment indicated there
would be no final investment decision until around the end of 2026."
and
"Woods announced that the Government would at the same time also
continue investigating an alternative set of power-storage initiatives which would cost an estimated $13.5b to develop but which she said
would come with higher running costs.
That alternative plan could see a smaller pumped hydro scheme built on
the Upper Moawhango in the central North Island, along with
investments in biomass-burning power stations, “flexible geothermal energy and green hydrogen”.
Woods voiced hope at a select committee that the investment decision
could transcend party politics.
“This is a very serious, long-term asset that we'd be talking about.
The prudent thing is we have to find a solution and we have to do this
in a rigorous and methodical way that I think takes the politics out
of it,” she said."
Clearly purchasing coal and burning it is a very expensive way of generating electricity. We do need to investigate and move forward on other alternatives.
Their are different views; the National Party are blind to current problems: "But National Party energy spokesperson Stuart Smith
suggested the idea Lake Onslow might go ahead was “tone deaf in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis” and National would immediately
cancel the business case if it won the election.
He said Lake Onslow was “a return to the bad old days of expensive government investment in a well-functioning electricity market” and
said last week that any solution to the dry-year problem could be left
to the market to deliver."
but Business NZ are in favour: "The executive director of BusinessNZ’s energy council, Tina Schirr, said the dry-year problem and demand
peaks were serious issues for the sector that need to be addressed."
So the government are considering a business case rather than justPerhaps like the government you blindly support Rich you to are insane...
going ahead - just as you want, Crash.
It would make a lot more sense if they invested the money in more geothermal power as that is not affected by drought and is not just renewable but a constant source of energy! Facts you constantly ignore Rich!
The government is throwing more money at a crazy idea that will no doubt follow Labours usual course and be just another failure!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 111:35:35 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,950 |