Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutionsI agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are going
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce
coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our
biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. Right >now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >country.
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduceWe are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are going to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. Right now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire with no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this country.
coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our
biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:36:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutionsI agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are going
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce
coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our >>>biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. Right
now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >>country.
only requires the companies to ensure that they can meet anticipated
demand, and they are slow to increase generation faster than necessary
as that may impact on profits. We have not penalised the use of coal
enough however.
There is talk of requiring generators to be split from distribution
and retail operations, but sadly the Bradford ""reforms"" have set us
back for a very long time.
Having said that the arrangement with NZ Steel will save us a lot of
money through the international agreements, so as start has been made.
I have advocated previously that it would be good to have a new
government owned generation company to concentrate on further wind and
solar generation to give the existing gen companies real competition;
sadly that is difficult when we have just emerged from the worst of
Covid to now experience a string of severe storm incidents that are
probably as severe economically as Covid, and will take a lot of
capital to recover from.
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNoinsense. This government is the one that is responsible. they have done nothing for more than 5 years. They own it now and have wasted all that time.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutionsI agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are >>going
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce
coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our >>>biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. >>Right
now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire >>with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >>country.
only requires the companies to ensure that they can meet anticipated
demand, and they are slow to increase generation faster than necessary
as that may impact on profits. We have not penalised the use of coal
enough however.
There is talk of requiring generators to be split from distribution
and retail operations, but sadly the Bradford ""reforms"" have set us
back for a very long time.
Having said that the arrangement with NZ Steel will save us a lot of
money through the international agreements, so as start has been made.
I have advocated previously that it would be good to have a new
government owned generation company to concentrate on further wind and
solar generation to give the existing gen companies real competition;
sadly that is difficult when we have just emerged from the worst of
Covid to now experience a string of severe storm incidents that are
probably as severe economically as Covid, and will take a lot of
capital to recover from.
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce
coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our
biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .
On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:26:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce
coal usage,
We do not need to do anything of the sort.
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:shareholders - the non-government shareholders want high long term
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNoinsense. This government is the one that is responsible. they have done >nothing for more than 5 years. They own it now and have wasted all that time. The companies are required to be run in the eh interests of all
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions >>>>I agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce >>>>coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our >>>>biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>>>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are >>>going
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. >>>Right
now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire >>>with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >>>country.
only requires the companies to ensure that they can meet anticipated >>demand, and they are slow to increase generation faster than necessary
as that may impact on profits. We have not penalised the use of coal
enough however.
There is talk of requiring generators to be split from distribution
and retail operations, but sadly the Bradford ""reforms"" have set us
back for a very long time.
Having said that the arrangement with NZ Steel will save us a lot of
money through the international agreements, so as start has been made.
I have advocated previously that it would be good to have a new
government owned generation company to concentrate on further wind and >>solar generation to give the existing gen companies real competition;
sadly that is difficult when we have just emerged from the worst of
Covid to now experience a string of severe storm incidents that are >>probably as severe economically as Covid, and will take a lot of
capital to recover from.
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce
coal usage,
On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:50:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou just refuse to understand that majority shareholders ALWAYS hold the power to get what they want irrespective of what the other shareholders want!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:The companies are required to be run in the eh interests of all
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNoinsense. This government is the one that is responsible. they have done >nothing for more than 5 years. They own it now and have wasted all that time.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions >>>>I agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce >>>>coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our >>>>biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>>>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are >>>going
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. >>>Right
now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire
with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >>>country.
only requires the companies to ensure that they can meet anticipated >>demand, and they are slow to increase generation faster than necessary >>as that may impact on profits. We have not penalised the use of coal >>enough however.
There is talk of requiring generators to be split from distribution
and retail operations, but sadly the Bradford ""reforms"" have set us >>back for a very long time.
Having said that the arrangement with NZ Steel will save us a lot of >>money through the international agreements, so as start has been made.
I have advocated previously that it would be good to have a new >>government owned generation company to concentrate on further wind and >>solar generation to give the existing gen companies real competition; >>sadly that is difficult when we have just emerged from the worst of >>Covid to now experience a string of severe storm incidents that are >>probably as severe economically as Covid, and will take a lot of
capital to recover from.
shareholders - the non-government shareholders want high long term
profits. What is it you believe the government could do that they have
not?
On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:55:31 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:So what will they do if we tell them NO! Cut off our clean air? Declare war? Time NZ acted like leaders not sheep! Time to tell the UN where to stick their bullshit climate crisis!
On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:26:27 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce >>coal usage,
We do not need to do anything of the sort.
Bill.Of course we do - the international agreements relating to ''climate change'' targets mean that if we do not reach targets we have to pay
quite a lot of money - it is cheaper for us to meet the targets, and reducing coal usage will do that. the arrangement with NZ Steel to
reduce their coal usage has probably saved us a large amount of money.
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutionsSo you think intermittent backup is the answer to rising energy needs Rich? Shows what a stupid little lamb being led to the slaughter you are! Shaw and Labour haven't got a clue! We need sources of energy that are available 24/7! Solar and wind aren't
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce
coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our
biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .
On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:50:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe government are primary shareholders in most cases. They can also enact legislation. Perhaps they should actually bleeding govern. Wow, that would be different wouldn't it?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:shareholders - the non-government shareholders want high long term
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNoinsense. This government is the one that is responsible. they have done >>nothing for more than 5 years. They own it now and have wasted all that time. >The companies are required to be run in the eh interests of all
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions >>>>>I agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce >>>>>coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our >>>>>biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>>>>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are >>>>going
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. >>>>Right
now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire >>>>with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >>>>country.
only requires the companies to ensure that they can meet anticipated >>>demand, and they are slow to increase generation faster than necessary
as that may impact on profits. We have not penalised the use of coal >>>enough however.
There is talk of requiring generators to be split from distribution
and retail operations, but sadly the Bradford ""reforms"" have set us >>>back for a very long time.
Having said that the arrangement with NZ Steel will save us a lot of >>>money through the international agreements, so as start has been made.
I have advocated previously that it would be good to have a new >>>government owned generation company to concentrate on further wind and >>>solar generation to give the existing gen companies real competition; >>>sadly that is difficult when we have just emerged from the worst of
Covid to now experience a string of severe storm incidents that are >>>probably as severe economically as Covid, and will take a lot of
capital to recover from.
profits. What is it you believe the government could do that they have
not?
On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:50:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:shareholders - the non-government shareholders want high long term
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNoinsense. This government is the one that is responsible. they have done >>nothing for more than 5 years. They own it now and have wasted all that time. >The companies are required to be run in the eh interests of all
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions >>>>>I agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce >>>>>coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our >>>>>biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>>>>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are >>>>going
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. >>>>Right
now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire >>>>with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >>>>country.
only requires the companies to ensure that they can meet anticipated >>>demand, and they are slow to increase generation faster than necessary
as that may impact on profits. We have not penalised the use of coal >>>enough however.
There is talk of requiring generators to be split from distribution
and retail operations, but sadly the Bradford ""reforms"" have set us >>>back for a very long time.
Having said that the arrangement with NZ Steel will save us a lot of >>>money through the international agreements, so as start has been made.
I have advocated previously that it would be good to have a new >>>government owned generation company to concentrate on further wind and >>>solar generation to give the existing gen companies real competition; >>>sadly that is difficult when we have just emerged from the worst of
Covid to now experience a string of severe storm incidents that are >>>probably as severe economically as Covid, and will take a lot of
capital to recover from.
profits. What is it you believe the government could do that they have
not?
On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:50:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:shareholders - the non-government shareholders want high long term
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:36:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyNoinsense. This government is the one that is responsible. they have done >>nothing for more than 5 years. They own it now and have wasted all that time. >The companies are required to be run in the eh interests of all
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/future-energy-revolutions >>>>>I agree with you that long term planning is poor - the legislation
We are doing well, but there are challenges ahead. We need to reduce >>>>>coal usage, but solar and wind generatio0n is getting cheaper. Our >>>>>biggest problem is that the generating companies have no incentive to >>>>>increase generation to the point that it reduces prices . . .We are not doing well until we decide exactly what generation type we are >>>>going
to use and decide how to store power. That is still the biggest problem. >>>>Right
now we are living in hope that what we are doing weill work for the futire >>>>with
no defined plan in place. The article has little to no relevance for this >>>>country.
only requires the companies to ensure that they can meet anticipated >>>demand, and they are slow to increase generation faster than necessary
as that may impact on profits. We have not penalised the use of coal >>>enough however.
There is talk of requiring generators to be split from distribution
and retail operations, but sadly the Bradford ""reforms"" have set us >>>back for a very long time.
Having said that the arrangement with NZ Steel will save us a lot of >>>money through the international agreements, so as start has been made.
I have advocated previously that it would be good to have a new >>>government owned generation company to concentrate on further wind and >>>solar generation to give the existing gen companies real competition; >>>sadly that is difficult when we have just emerged from the worst of
Covid to now experience a string of severe storm incidents that are >>>probably as severe economically as Covid, and will take a lot of
capital to recover from.
profits. What is it you believe the government could do that they have
not?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 128:01:50 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,189 |