All posts in the topic Energy supply in Canterbury
Summary
- There are 11 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by jackbrosnan at Jan 14 11:16 UTC
Hi there
While we've been worrying about water in Canterbury of which we have lots of it
and arguing over who has a conflict of interest - whether those who have rural
water permits have more interest in charging everyone for water as opposed to
the also conflicted city-dwellers who want to avoid paying for water and push
it onto rural dwellers - while we focus on something we have lots of we forget
about something we'll run out of shortly - oil.
Last night's docu-drama on Prime should have us urgently working on ways to
become energy self sufficient in Canterbury. The only issue I have with the
doco was the name - "If the oil runs out" - when not if......
I argued this point 2 years ago yet no-one has done anything about it and
another 2 years worth of oil has disappeared
Have you ever heard the comment of any project that it will never be cheaper
than it is now as costs always increase? Another way to look at it is when the
oil runs out we'll be too late to get anything built - so what do we need and
what do we have?
We have great sustainable energy generators:
Waves
Rivers
Wind
Solar
Bio fuels
We also have some great seasonal variation - greater wind in spring and autumn,
while there are less river flows in summer there's more sunlight for solar
power and so on
We should also look at more individual sustainability for the likes of heating
and other housing energy - solar panels on the roof etc
Our transport infrastructure should be looking to self sufficiency and
sustainable transport options - electric trains and buses from local generated
electricity from the sources mentioned above
In the documentary last night the suggestion was made that we will adapt -
however the pain that other parts of the world will feel if they don't adapt
quickly enough could be avoided here if we start right now. Remember that as
the cost of oil increases it will impact on our (local Canterbury) economy. Our
oil dependence or independence will mean we can get ahead as a region if we are
visionary enough to start now.
Imagine a scenario where we have no dependence on oil and produce food for the
rest of the world - we would be one of the richest region's in the world.....or
we could be oil poor...
We have lots of water but not oil - what are we doing about it?
Michael Campbell
Hi Michael,
I have noticed a spread of adverts that appear to be sponsored by the CCC
about running short of water. I have no idea of the cost of the ads - and
even less idea of the purpose of them. Why are these expensive ads being
run? Can anyone explain?
We are not short of oil - oil is about our 5th largest export.... and we
have plenty more where that stuff came from. We export it - apparently -
because we do not have the refining technology here in NZ for such a high
quality oil.
Of course, getting back to the oil bubble bursting.... Whatever anyone saves
as an individual will only be squandered by the second winter ski run in
Dubai. (It is going to be larger than the one they already have) Artificial
rationing of a finite product usually results not in a saving - but a
re-distribution. So, you save a bit of oil - so someone else has a bit more
to use up - like the ski slope operators in Dubai... The search and
retrieval costs of oil are supposed to be increasing - but to some degree
oil recovery technology is advancing so fast and the demand for high-tech
systems is so great that the actual costs are probably going down. In the
end, oil can only be rationed - or supplies spun out longer - on a country
by country basis. That is, our Government can do something to reduce our
demand for oil (increase the taxes on it, ration importation, make some uses
of the product illegal, limit private motoring use etc) but a country's oil
consumption reduction is only taken up by some other country using a bit
more - the reason being that if, say, lil' ol' NZ severely limited its oil
importation, then the international price would drop (slightly) - and a drop
in price will result in an increase in demand....
Water is a difficult issue. We have plenty of it in Canterbury - but some of
it is very old and very deep. The ancient water is lying there waiting to be
"mined" under the Canterbury Plains. So what should we do? Leave it in the
ground - like the purported "family silver" - or mine it (literally - just
like coal)? If we leave it in the ground, then no one gets to benefit from
it - so how long can we keep up a scenario like that? A generation? Two?
Nah!
Of course, if we "mined" the deep artesian water then we may find brackish
ocean water will seep through the layers of gravel leaving us with a layer
of brackish water - hundreds of feet below us. Ancient, clean, fresh water
replaced by brackish water. Would it matter? No, not if we had already
"mined" the fresh stuff and used it on improved crops and thus improved
incomes and standard of living. Would it matter if we didn't mine it? Yes -
because it will just sit there doing nothing but keeping out the brackish
ocean water. It is too deep for casual use - so it does not really matter if
the stuff is pure artesian - or brackish ocean....
But to continue with water issues - everyone should have an equal right to
the stuff - but it has to be allocated fairly. The fairest way is to auction
its use on a daily (or even hourly) basis - so, you only pay for what you
want - and obviously at certain times of the year you want a lot - as do
everyone else.... and you have to match the strength of your desire to
purchase the stuff with the going price created by everyone else wanting it
when you do.
This would be called a "water market" - but would be similar to our
electricity usage market.
Sure, you and others would not actually want to see such a scheme.... but if
the alternative is a city watering and showering and running industry with
no limits on water usage... and some farmers well set up with allocated
"water rights" - while others have no access to the same water.... Well, you
get a feeling for the unfairness of the current hap-hazard allocation
system...
So, could someone explain WHY the CCC is spending money on expensive water
usage billboards?
Cheers,
Tim Kerr
Tim Kerr wrote:
> So, could someone explain WHY the CCC is spending money on expensive water
> usage billboards?
>
Govt spending stimulates the economies. A big example is defence spending.
Govts try to be economy drivers, taxing and spending They haven't
worried much about the stresses they can put on the environment.
They could be trying to make water look like it ought to be charged for
in the city. Where would the money go? It could be public spending or it
could be privatised, with the companies having money making for the
primary aim, which could degrade the environment.
Building a rail system for Chch could be one way of spendiing the
money.and stimulating the economy.
I think we need a different economics.
The current 5 year contract system for bus services has meant the no 60
bus will be changed to a route with no houses on it for a considerable
distance, for several years until houses are built there, if they are..
A better economic system could be more flexible.
Energy would be saved by getting more people to use the public
transport, before even thinking about putting in a train system.
The current bus system does not enable contact between different
companies. Quite often just as my bus pulls into a stop at an exchange
point the bus I wanted to connect to moves off at the same instant
before I can get to it. I would liek to see communication bectween bus
companies enabled before rail.
I have talked to the bus planners and they think nothing of making
passengers wait 10 - 15 mins for the next bus. But if many 10 min waits
could be reduced then I think fewer people would use cars. That might
threaten the economy as it is.
Also I believe cellphone technology and the higher power computing
available today could be used to have the public bus system more a step
towards on demand - taxi service. Then a lot of waste services on
Christmas day might be substitued for some sort of service being
available on demand on Christmas day night. Or on any day.
Of course we need to encourage car pooling. Should the CCC be doing
that? Not if it is trying to drive the current 'economy'?
> Last night's docu-drama on Prime should have us urgently working on ways
> to become energy self sufficient in Canterbury. The only issue I have with
> the doco was the name - "If the oil runs out" - when not if......
Sorry to be a cynic, but we won't urgently start to work on alternatives
until it's too late. Too late for "us" that is, but not too late for "you"
to do something for yourself and your nearest and dearest.
I agree with Tim, energy reserves will get consumed by someone regardless
of how much is left because we won't be able to shake our fixation on
continual growth until we run into the hard limit of not oil "running
out", but the point at which it takes more energy to get the oil out of
the ground than we get from consuming it.
In so far as this is a Canterbury issue, because our leadership (like
governments everywhere) is fixated on growth (of our population, our
economy, individual wealth) any suggestion that we live a more austere
life now in preparation for a future of enforced austerity will be
completely ignored. Unlike the disaster movies we enjoy so much where
dramatic things happen overnight making it easy for us to respond in
Rambo-like fashion, this one will happen so gradually that we will never
actually admit that it's happening (just like climate change, even now),
even *after* it's too late. There will be a gradual change in our culture
so that one day we will be saying noble things like:
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was
loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our
Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
(Native American "learned wisdom", probably after they had finally come to
a balance between their population and the natural resources that their
technology could exploit to support that population).
Mind you, at that point there will be a lot fewer of us.
So, my suggestion re oil is: try to make your own life as oil-independent
as possible and then focus on your family and friends if you still have
any energy left.
Happy 2010, CPIF readers.
Some answers to tie off the tangential drift.
Tim Kerr wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I have noticed a spread of adverts that appear to be sponsored by the CCC
> about running short of water. I have no idea of the cost of the ads - and
> even less idea of the purpose of them. Why are these expensive ads being
> run? Can anyone explain?
>
Tim, a new terminological concept sometimes heard these days is 'Negawatts'.
Meaning, given the prohibitively runaway cost of new infrastructure
projects now, it is often deemed more cost effective to reduce demand
than to lay on new supply - in this example, for electricity. Hence the
rapid mainstreaming of Energy Efficiency and Conservation politics, and
the high value placed on capping energy demand growth. And the exact
same thinking applies to urban water supplies.
Whereas 2009/10 may not be an extreme dry summer that requires garden
watering restrictions in Christchurch, the investment in habituating
users to water conservation measures now is seen as best preparation for
that inevitable dry summer when changed behaviour is actually needed.
This advertising and educational approach, over years, will be far
cheaper than trying to meet unlimited new demand for water that cannot
anyway forever be met.
> We are not short of oil - oil is about our 5th largest export.... and we
> have plenty more where that stuff came from. We export it - apparently -
> because we do not have the refining technology here in NZ for such a high
> quality oil.
>
Much as it would seem wise to conserve this valuable resource for an
eventual processing capacity - and transport independence - here, we
really need to smarten industry for leaving the hydrocarbons in the
ground. This is possible to start work on today, with political
corruption (misleadership) being the main obstacle that I have observed.
> .. a drop in price will result in an increase in demand....
>
True, a global transformation of transport energy politics is required.
Starting with a viable prototype..
> Water is a difficult issue. We have plenty of it in Canterbury - but some of
> it is very old and very deep. The ancient water is lying there waiting to be
> "mined" under the Canterbury Plains.
No, it is all seeping or running inexorably out to sea. The deeper, the
slower the flow - hence 'older' water flows.
> So what should we do? Leave it in the
> ground - like the purported "family silver" - or mine it (literally - just
> like coal)? If we leave it in the ground, then no one gets to benefit from
> it - so how long can we keep up a scenario like that? A generation? Two?
> Nah!
>
Be aware of the place of every element in a healthy, functioning
ecosystem, and that human impacts unavoidably degrade this so need to be
reasonably restrained.
> Of course, if we "mined" the deep artesian water then we may find brackish
> ocean water will seep through the layers of gravel leaving us with a layer
> of brackish water - hundreds of feet below us. Ancient, clean, fresh water
> replaced by brackish water. Would it matter? No, not if we had already
> "mined" the fresh stuff and used it on improved crops and thus improved
> incomes and standard of living. Would it matter if we didn't mine it? Yes -
> because it will just sit there doing nothing but keeping out the brackish
> ocean water. It is too deep for casual use - so it does not really matter if
> the stuff is pure artesian - or brackish ocean....
>
Total myth, I have been informed. The scale of the flow in the
Canterbury aquifer system is such that we are at zero risk of salt water
intrusion here. The Heathcote Valley catchment is a local exception,
requiring separate management methods. And deep aquifer water is never
"doing nothing" - it maintains the pressure in the aquifers above it, as
vertical linkage of groundwater bodies is now better understood. The
pressure keeps excess contaminants out, and the resident filtering
microorganisms alive - maintaining groundwater quality.
> But to continue with water issues - everyone should have an equal right to
> the stuff - but it has to be allocated fairly. The fairest way is to auction
> its use on a daily (or even hourly) basis - so, you only pay for what you
> want - and obviously at certain times of the year you want a lot - as do
> everyone else.... and you have to match the strength of your desire to
> purchase the stuff with the going price created by everyone else wanting it
> when you do.
>
> This would be called a "water market" - but would be similar to our
> electricity usage market.
>
Yeah, and we know how well that is serving its 'public owners' /
consumers, and the touted reinvestment in infrastructure - Not.
> Sure, you and others would not actually want to see such a scheme.... but if
> the alternative is a city watering and showering and running industry with
> no limits on water usage... and some farmers well set up with allocated
> "water rights" - while others have no access to the same water.... Well, you
> get a feeling for the unfairness of the current hap-hazard allocation
> system...
>
Again, I'd say "clean out the political corruption around water use
issues", to achieve a level playing field, and we'd then be started down
the track to a rational (environmentally sustainable) natural resource
model. That is, prioritise the clean-up campaign.
> So, could someone explain WHY the CCC is spending money on expensive water
> usage billboards?
>
Because 'economic sustainability' is the very poor cousin of
environmental sustainability, which the (linguistically) corrupt for too
long have gotten away with confusing.
Thank you for your answers to my questions (and statements!) Michael.
I feel you - and others - may have been seduced by the powers-that-be of the
PR and advertising world! So, we see lots of expensive advertising telling
us to conserve our water (when clearly we don't actually have a shortage of
it) in the hope that people will see them, modify their behaviour and either
use less (which is soon used up by the less easily affected and influenced
who will, naturally, use a little more....) . Or, they will see the ads and
start feeling guilty and pressured into worrying about future possible
shortages - added to the rent or mortgage, increasing ACC levies,
electricity costs, worry about holding onto a job, the kids that are turning
into teenagers.... and the high cost of the morning newspaper! Oh great!
I think the ads are wasteful - and are setting us up to be contumacious,
unhappy, cynical and selfish.
The electricity market as we have in NZ may have its faults.... but it is
beginning to indicate where and what the market needs. I do think it is
riddled with imperfections - such as the inability to price coal-powered
generation into the equation (yet we can sell as much as we like to other
users overseas AND in NZ!) So, for all it faults it is providing us with a
more-or-less consistent supply.
But I am interested in your comments about our deep artesian water. It seems
there is plenty of opportunity to allocate the stuff on an open market
basis - and that it will not run out within a few years. Naturally, the
costs will go up if the demand gets to be higher than the supply, so
theoretically it will not "run out". The pressure or "foundation" that the
deeper, older water provides is OK - except that IF brackish water could
seep in it would not change the nature of the shallower supplies - so
"mining" the deeper water could still be carried out (albeit in the longer
term on a non-sustainable basis.)
I think the water-saving ads have been a bit of a con-job. I object to them!
While on the topic - energy supply in Christchurch - I observe the
correspondence in "The Press" about light rail and buses. People are missing
the point! Light rail - and to a large extent buses - take people from the
suburbs to the centre. Why? Who needs to go to the town centre? Public
servants, CCC employees and office wallahs in the Regional Council - plus a
few bar-tenders, restauranteurs, and those ghastly baristas who spend far
too long making up cups of fancy, calorie-laden coffee for fat
administrators!
Most people commute from suburb to suburb - and for this they need a car.
Others (including, it seems, an awful lot of women with jobs that finish at
1500 hrs) need to pick up their little Dharlings from school - to go to
ballet and music lessons. You cannot do that with light rail or buses!
Others need to get to their rock-climbing or surfing venues - they have to
carry their gear - you can't get there, or carry the gear, on light rail or
a bus!
Finally, roads are for transport - transport of GOODS - you can't deliver
Nescafe to all the supermarkets on the back of a bus! While city roads are
clogged (to a mild degree) with Mum's picking up their Dharlings, once you
are out of the city most transport appears to be trucks and road lice (road
louse = a truckie's term for a hired motorhome)
But I'm ranting on about a different topic now....
Oh cripes! Another year has started!!!
Cheers,
Tim Kerr
It's a bit hard to know where to start with tim kerr's 'rantings' [his term not
mine!]
But a couple of random observations.
Who said the purpose of life was gleeful personal happiness while we squander
precious resources and lay waste to the planet without any consideration of the
quality of life of future generations?
The market does not adequately protect intrinsic values - it is a purely
materialistic and blind allocation system and presumes infinite resources or
infinite substitution options - that is the only way one can have growth. It
panders to the lowest common denominator; e.g. soon all radio and tv will be
populist talk back and reality shows and golf, fishing, motor racing and
advertising controlled by commercial and/or religious empires. The question is,
will the empire fight back?
So ... it fails to look after things that have non-material value or cannot be
substituted such as biodiversity (eg the rantings on merits of native plants in
ernle reserve - extinction is forever), pure clean water (rantings on water
supply)*, cheap fossil fuel energy (rantings on lack of oil shortage), and
socio-cultural-spiritual values (not sure if there have been rantings on this
topic but I'm sure there can be).
Mind you, 'we' have brought up a couple of generations of children (baby
boomers and their kids) largely conditioned by the hedonistic american
capitalist culture (a waning star) and it will be a difficult and painful task
now to turn the titanic 'me-culture' onto a more sustainable and fruitful
course. Don't get me wrong - I'm as hedonistic and fun-loving as the next
hedonist, but it does seem to be turning a little ugly.
*NB once we've sprinkled all our easily winnable artesian water, arguably one
of the best town water supplies in the world, onto dry garden soils to make
them grow rain forests or lush green lawns, then we will be forced into, yes a
substitute, extracting water from the waimakariri, holding it in reservoirs and
chlorinating it - have u ever choked on auckland town supply?)
Yikes, the new year has started - thx for reminding me.
colin
Tim,
"...when clearly we don't actually have a shortage of [water]..."
Why do you think we don't?
If a shortage is simply 'not enough for what people or things need or want',
there do appear to be shortages in Canterbury. It just depends on who "we"
are, and when we're thinking about it. Irrigators would not want a new
reservoir if not to get more water for what they consider shortages. Even
under current land uses, seasonal water shortages leave irrigation-based
farmers worse off. Also consider the groundwater-fed streams near the lower
Selwyn, or the middle reaches of the Selwyn itself: flow is dropping and
seasonally dry reaches are becoming more frequent. This drop in flow impacts
aquatic and riparian organisms (the "who").
I am sure there are people or organisms in Canty that do not, nor will not,
experience a water shortage, but there are already those that do. And if
current trends continue (i.e., hydrological, agricultural), I would bet that
more will.
Whether urban water conservation or conservation publicity have an impact,
or a cost-effective impact, is another matter, for which I don't have any
data at present.
Colin,
Much, possibly most, of Chch's drinking does come from the Waimak already.
It just comes to us via the aquifer system. If I recall correctly, the
epicenter of Waimak-based g/w recharge is where the river takes its bend
from south-east to east.
Cheers,
-Daniel Collins
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Colin Meurk
Yes Daniel u are right, I think, and agree with your other comments; my main
point was that if we extract water faster than the recharge rate we will
eventually have to replicate nature's services using very expensive technology,
engineering and chemicals. the end product will be inferior, impacting on both
our already debt-burdened lifestyles as will the quality of life therein.
Nature's services are however free and sustainable ... if we nurture them. But
then the tricky question of carrying capacity has to be considered.
colin
Eventually, roads are for ship - displace of Artefact - you can't verbalise Nescafe to all the supermarkets on the okay of a bus! Patch metropolis roads are thick (to a temperate level) with Mum's yield up their Dharlings, once you are out of the city most instrumentation appears to be trucks and touring lice (agency insect = a truckie's statue for a hired motorhome) ******************** Jack Brosnan [url=http://www.divineflowers.ca]vancouver flowers[/url]
<a href="http://www.divineflowers.ca" rel="dofollow">vancouver flowers</a>
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.