Written By:
- Date published:
2:02 pm, February 12th, 2026 - 34 comments
Categories: climate change, Economy, energy, ETS, national, same old national, science -
Tags:
The Government has responded to a perceived urgency caused by dry years to the country’s power supply by proposing something that is counter intuitive.
The basic problem is that during a dry period the country’s stored water for hydro purposes gets used and not replenished.
In these times when the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has never been clearer the solution for me is very simple.
Lots and lots of solar power panels.
These have multiple benefits:
You would think that using solar panels to deal with dry year power supply issues would be a no brainer.
But no. This Government’s complete antipathy to doing anything to help the climate has meant that it is going for a really expensive alternative that relies on importing a dwindling fuel that is really bad for the climate, arguably worse than coal. As pointed out by Marc Daalder at Newsroom some studies conclude that when the production, shipping and methane leaks from LNG are included, it could produce more climate-damaging pollution than burning coal.
And to add to the pathos of it all the Government has, two years and three months into its term, announced that it wants to bypass even the fast track process and use empowering legislation to achieve this. If they were serious they could have added this project into schedule 2 of the Fast Track law and be getting on with the application.
The Cabinet Paper gives it away by describing as a risk the prospect of a future Government changing its mind. They clearly want to make sure this decision cannot be overturned, no matter what the merits are. Shame on them.
The paper also claims that there will be a reduction in CO2 emissions by 0.244 Mt CO₂-equivalent because the availability of LNG will mean that hydro use will be greater.
Imagine the amount that solar panels could save. And shame the analysis has not been done.
The last time fast track legislation was used was the Clyde Dam empowering legislation passed in 1982. This was one of Rob Muldoon’s Think Big projects, a group of state sponsored projects most of which turned out to be disastrous because they were predicated on incresing petroleum prices which did not happen.
Muldoon borrowed billions to build them and the returns never eventuated. This drastically affected the economy and Labour’s shift to Rogernomics was in part to address the economic crisis that Muldoon caused.
So this repeat of previous thinking needs to be very carefully interrogated.
EDS head Gary Taylor has suggested that the Government does this properly and aims to start construction in 2027. The chances of a dry year are not particularly high and there is always the option of burning coal at Huntley if the need arises this yeear or next year.
But smashing the project through this year and not even using your fast track legislation to provide a solution that will increase emissions is contemptible and should never be forgiven.
Not on the same scale but the Americas Cup Planning Act 1989 got the Auckland Viaduct done in time.
This government is a mess.
Such a high risk that a Hipkins government will go "Remember how you cut the ferries and the entire infrastructure and housing deals worth tens of billions?
Here's payback "
"They clearly want to make sure this decision cannot be overturned, no matter what the merits are…."
They're very keen to fast track some shitting in the bed for future generations to deal with after hobbling wind farms and cancelling pumped hydro schemes to name just 2 pieces of fossil fuel friendly behaviour.
https://thestandard.nz/new-electricity-tax-coming/
The 10/2 post about taxes on electricity is likely to get in the way of thinking clearly about our energy use. And huge data banks could suck us dry. We should be watching more closely. Are we Frozen? (The story seems mired in complications – as we are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_(2013_film)
I think that Hobbits v others will be our best gathering point for dealing with the high-tech types, and keeping the thought that high is also used for people on drugs and their ilk. Hobbits believed in a place to stand and a way of living to cherish. Similar to Maori. Maybe we should be paying attention to the Maori who are bypassing the intoxicating power of piles of money and the auspicious power of gender etc. The modern magnetic attraction of those who promote themselves as the People of the Future, which is big and shiny.
Don't romanticise Maori too much, the local tribe in my area is forging ahead with a river hydro project over the objections of a number of green tourism companies using the river for rafting and ziplines with replantings and restoration from a percentage of profits. Chasing piles of money isn't more or less common between Maori and Pakeha.
I once attended an energy talk where an educated expert explained why solar makes sense in Australia, but not in NZ. Aus needs energy in summer for AC.. and there's heaps of sun. NZ needs energy for winter heating… when there's fa sunshine so other power sources are preferable.
yes, may be better calls for more wind power electricity generation
The analysis I have seen doesn't allow for decreased dividends from the power companies to the government if electricity prices drop due to less risk of dry year generation shortages.
If the government increased solar generation with a solar panel subsidy more water could be kept behind the dams to cover a dry year. There would also be some additional solar generation to cover dry year shortages. Why has the government not provided costings for this, wind generation and other alternatives alongside their LNG costings ?
Solar panels would be quicker to install than an LNG terminal and clearly with less on going running costs and certainly with less risk of cost over runs and delays. The safety concerns of an LNG terminal are considerable.
With the planned increases in electricity prices the return for people installing solar power will be even higher. Does this country have an energy plan ? The unnecessary rush is not conducive to careful and successful planning.
Agree.
I see Winston's still going about the shut down of Marsden Point.
It's become the issue of the time with his cooker / freedom/ anti* demographic. They're convinced that all our troubles are because the refinery was shut down and we can't make our own fuel.
Right now it's morphed into the roads are fucked because we don't make bitumen any more. Maybe some merit in that but it's due to going from a single supplier to whatever the contractors can source cheapest.
Oh, and Jacinda’s got to be to blame.
Have you driven much in Northland or the Far Noth Graeme?
The roads were truly shoddy before Woods scrapped Marsden Point.
Now that we have to buy and ship in bitumen that would make the needed repairs less likely and more expensive. Nothing cooker about that.
Marsden point shut down was Not a Government decision.
Except the possibility of rebuilding it, for many billions.
A stupid idea, as stupid as the Coalition of cockups LNG terminal. When oil and gas is the energy of the past.
"Except the possibility of rebuilding it, for many billions."
So when the left under invest and allow to rundown key infrastructure that's OK.
Regardless, akin to Luxon's LNG Folly, we are at the mercy of long supply chains and foreign shipping companies. A retrograde step.
"Investing" in Marsden point makes as much sense as "investing" in stables to return to horse drawn buses. Yesterday's infrastructure soon to be made absolete by renewables.
The supply chains are still from overseas whether it is crude or refined product.
You would have screamed if Labour had spent billions on reserreting a too small, uneconomic, and past the end of its useful life refinery. Soon to be redundant as we shiftt to locally produced more sustainable sources.
Wasting money, which is better spent on developing better and less costly, in foreign exchange, sources.
All of that is only half of a story.
Marsden Point's closure was a condition of Ampol buying Z off the NZ Super Fund. It can be argued that it was a Government decision. A neo-liberal decision.
Far from a " past the end of its useful life refinery"; "More recently, although the plant’s owner last year described it as “one of the safest and most reliable oil refineries in the Asia-Pacific region”.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2022/12/08/national-cost-of-marsden-point-closure-highlighted-by-christmas-jet-fuel-shortage/
"The left" were redirecting investment into our future.
National canned most of it two years ago.
Northland may have been lucky with the bitumen sourced being suited to local climate. Generally it's coming from places warmer than here, and with less seasonal and diurnal temp change. Go further south and there's problems with bitumen that isn't quite up to previous specs. Marsden Point, for all its faults, produced quite good bitumen for NZ conditions, and contractors were very skilled in using it in local conditions. I've been out of that game for a while but am seeing a lot of fuckups (bleeding or stripping) that would be related to bitumen that doesn't behave quite as expected.
The original intent when Marsden Point closed was for NZTA to source bitumen to suitable spec and become a single point supplier to NZ contractors. This RNZ piece from 2022 gives some insight to the issues and why industry had issues with that idea. The margins on bitumen are mind boggling, it's truly black gold, and yes, suppliers and contractors are making a lot of profit out of bitumen. Naturally they want to preserve that situation. NZTA as single point supplier really has to happen but can't see it happening with this government.
The only involvement Woods had in Marsden's closure was to refuse to pay to rebuild it, as KJT says. Mildly amusing that the current government falls for the same bleating from the fossil industry and pays, well makes us pay, to rebuild the gas industry.
@ Darien @7.
"I see Winston's still going about the shut down of Marsden Point."
Any other details, a link or even a vibe?
I see he is making noises about a rail spur connecting MP to the main trunk line. Makes sense for two reasons, the multi generational neglect of funding in Northland and that is his stomping ground.
The rail spur to Northport, is a typical example of Labour trying to invest for the future, and then it being canned by National.
Long overdue. The land was designated by Clarks Government.
"The rail spur to Northport, is a typical example of Labour trying to invest for the future,"
Reading up on the project it appears to be courtesy of NZ1st not Labour.
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media/government-investment-allows-more-northland-freight-on-rail/
The PGF was a key component of the NZ1st's coalition with Labour.
If you look at the history of proposals for the Marsden point rail spur, it even predates, Winston!
They, the COC just lost the election.
This whole LNG scheme is illegal because it is inimical to NZ's climate change commitments.
Hipkins should say he will cancel the whole thing on this basis if he forms a government.
Any contracts signed by the COC are null and void.
If a bill permitting the daft LNG scheme is rammed through both Labour and the Greens and Greenpeace etc etc should take it to court. Hipkins should make it plain that because of the climate change implications no compensation for broken contracts will be paid.
The argument that destroys the COC scheme is so so easy.
Look across the Tasman .
Australia with its massive carbon centric resources has just reduced its power prices by investing in renewables. QED.
I follow the sustaintarras group on Instagram.
It is an evolving horror story down there, in addition to this LPG insanity.
Virtually the whole of North and Central Otago is covered in mining permits now.
The eyewatering figures for the tonnage of rock to be mined, the volumes of cyanide, the dams, and tailings, the arsenic, the hundreds of hectares ruined for ever –it makes me weep.
The media take no notice. The silence is deafening.
Will Luxon sleep cuddled up to his bar of gold while the planet burns?
The DomPost has given the Santana mine application some coverage (pay per view): https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360943210/new-zealands-mining-boom-fabulous-fortune-or-fools-gold
As usual, the government has framed the issue as environment vs jobs (no prizes for guessing what comes first).
As I see it, the difference between the Natz and Labour is:
Is it possible to put up an archived version of that Post piece please. The Post's paywall seems to be a bit stronger than Granny's.
I accessed the article via my local library's Pressreader facility.
I liked this comment by Massey Uni mining expert Glenn Banks: "It's a classic boom and bust sector. And when it goes bust, these are not the stories the mining industry tells you when they come along with their big narratives about how wonderful this is going to be for the country."
Too right. A few West Coast navvies will make some money, but the environment (supposedly held on trust for future generations) is sacrificed for all time.
Sometimes Post articles start working on archive. after a few days, I'll give it another go later.
The boom and bust aspect of gold mining is something we've been shielded from with our recent mines, they've all enjoyed adequate gold prices. I was in WA in the 80's in civil, there were gold mines shutting down overnight, everyone down the road. The sector has a very low tolerance for loosing money. Some of them were quite big operations. But on the other side of the coin, as soon as the price gets to a point where the mine is economic it's all go again.
I know a few here with claims, it's an ongoing calculation whether to work the claim or find something else to do, right now they're living on their claims.
This is going to be interesting to watch sit goes through the Fast Track process. There's going to be 140 days of it, so it can be assumed MoE's bullshit detectors were making strange noises as they went through Santana's application.
A likely point of contention is Santana's intention to place the excavated material above / uphill from the pit in Engineered Land Forms (ELF). Presumably this is to contain any failure of the waste material in the pit. There will be a range of views on the prudence of doing this on top of Otago schists. MoE will be sitting on a lot of research reports from the Clyde Dam era which found some very distressing things in those hills. There's also a lot of expertise developed in dealing with the instability as well.
The whenua may well have the last say on grand plans for Central Otago, again. The Kawarau hydro developments that were to be part of Clyde project were very quickly abandoned because of slope instability, which also caused major problems for Clyde delaying lake filling until very expensive remedial work had been undertaken.
We will ignore the fact that many of Muldoons think big projects actually served the country well over time, and served private owners even better, when subsequent Governments sold them off way too cheaply.
The mistakes were mainly apparent in hindsight.
The same problem that Muldoon was addressing still applies now. The hemorrhaging foreign exchange to pay for energy. More than we earn from dairy pays for oil. Muldoon tried to slow it down with local alternatives. Which was partially successful. The idea of Government investment in future assets was sound. Norway showed how.
The current Coalition of Cockups, is ensuring the haemorrhage continues. Nowadays we have better, and cheaper, environmentally and economically, local alternatives, which they have been busily fucking up to favour oil and gas. If there isn't corruption involved, it certainly looks like there is?
Can't agree with all those points.
Point 1 is really addressing the fixed exchange rate system which was always going to fail. It was going to fail even with any other economic strategy (including direct spending) as the effects of that still flow into the foreign exchange markets.
The failure of the fixed exchange rate system is often colloquially referred to as NZs bankruptcy, something it never was. It was simply the eventual failure of something which was becoming politically infeasible to maintain. Roger Douglas (having benefitted politically from its failure) didn't hesitate to drop it and fully float the currency (because it didn't benefit NZ and would have failed again). It's worth highlighting that fixed exchange rates are a part of how foreign colonies are maintained. These benefit the colonial power by lowering the amount of spending the colony does on itself and keeping the exports of the colony up. NZ was becoming more independent at the time and so it was simply time to do away with the fixed exchange rate system which was a vestige of the countries colonial history.
Fortunately for NZs sake however we left colony status as a westernized economy and so have joined the global economy as a first world country. It's simply the case that first world economies have tended to import more than they export most times (naturally because our labour standards are higher, so lower wage production shifts overseas). This is the main influence on our foreign exchange markets (and it's totally fine that people in other countries like to hold $NZ in exchange for goods, when that changes NZ will just end up exporting more as a result).
The actual issue here is that our typical external deficit drains demands spending instead comes from our two internal sectors (the government and non-government sectors) and since we have been fastidiously lowering our public sector spending we have a big debt accrued in our non-government sector (most NZ households have taken on a lot of housing debt, or pay rent to an owner who has taken on a lot of housing debt). This ought to be addressed by much higher levels of public spending which would increase our standard of living, lower our inequality levels and overall decrease our household debt levels (often called increasing our saving rates). Doing this however will look negative for the government budget in the ways it is conventionally talked about.
Thing is if we are focused on the health of the budget side, were going to miss the point. To make an analogy to present events you can get diverted into focusing on how much the Wellington council is and has been spending on water, while your actively pouring raw sewerage into the Harbour. Now if we try to cost that out to the nth degree because it's the most efficient for rate payers, those outflows continue even longer.
One slightly positive aspect of this proposal is its very temporary nature. If the plant can be purchased installed and commissioned in the timeframe proposed, then it can be decommissioned and sold as well. How easy it is to sell may be another matter.
The plant is either 'off the shelf' sitting in a yard somewhere ready to ship and install, or a collection of readily available components. It would be interesting to see details of the procurement process, where / who it's coming from and what alternative there were. But I suspect someone is doing quite nicely out of this.
If the LNG project isn't corrupt, it certainly appears to be.
As I've said before however. "NZ politicians are not corrupt. They wait until they leave Parliament, before collecting their sinecere Directorships and other rewards".