National surprise with big electricity vision


I know, I’m as genuinely shocked as you are, National actually come up with some policy that is interesting and worthy of debate…

National announces plan to double renewable energy

The National party has announced plans to double New Zealand’s renewable energy supply by cutting consenting red tape, should it win the next election.

…I thought they were just going to beat the tough on crime bullshit and other reactionary knee jerks, but this is an actual idea that is crucial to NZs energy future.

If we all collectively agree that we want to be 100% sustainable in terms of energy on a super warming planet, vast investment into electricity is necessary and the focus of this policy will genuinely push development of sustainable energy vastly forwards.

- Sponsor Promotion -

I very much want to see some focus on tidal energy generation, I think this is a field that NZ could aspire greatly in terms of technology and investment.

I would love to see really focused goals like solar panels/local grid windmills on every state building by 2030.

This is National at their best. Well thought out ideas by smart people who aren’t foaming some reactionary bullshit  every 30 seconds.

Where has this National been?

We need a discussion on NZs future electricity security and it has to be a sustainable one, this is the first time since Simon Bridges suggested the tax bracket shift that National have actually advanced an idea that wasn’t stupid.



Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media


    • At a population of 25 million Australia has the least justification for going nuclear with its research reactor and incoming nuclear subs. So if New Zealand wanted to go nuclear we’d have to plane for a much larger population.

    • No, too expensive, takes over a decade to build, and the industry is rife with corruption and safety compromising rackets (e.g. UK sent some fuel rods to Japan a few years back and they were sent back as the welds were so shit they were falling apart).

      Nowhere in the world is Nuclear financed, built and operated by private companies – it always has subsidies (mostly to build capability for military nuclear), because it’s just so incredible expensive and risky. You can’t finance something over 10 years that uses massive amounts of concrete and steel and scarce labour because those costs are not predictable over that timeframe.

      • There’s a whole bunch of non military grade uranium reactors and safety precautions that make a Chernobyl impossible I’m Western nations. Western military nuclear schools have come along way sing the fall of the Berlin wall.

        The justification for nuclear are many and varied. One reason is that it’s a big whack of energy in a closed circuit.

        Another competitor on a cost at about $50 for every kilowatt hour is a solar space array in earth’s orbit that uses microwaves to send power back down to relay station on earth then we wouldn’t need to buy the land mass that cities don’t really have for solar or build costly energy grids and superconductors everywhere.

        On a cost per mega watt though I believe land based solar is cheaper but I think rocket lab can send payloads into orbit for $50 a kg so could go either way. Bit of prefer a global solar energy grids.

        Could you imagine relieving the UK of its energy reliance on Russia? Come on guys. A global low orbit energy grid just makes since and we’ve got everything to do it yknow we got a bunch of lazy fucks in desperate need of work, rockets and a bunch of diversity scientists trying to end the cold war. Yknow? A wins a win.

        • and what did the boss in the control room at chernobyl say as the reaction was running away? sam something about it being perfectly safe?

    • yea if you want to live in a wasteland….and don’t give me the safe routine which is clearly not true….let’s look at a disaster with a wind turbine, a few cows stampede…disaster with a nuke plant goodnight to the south island…and because they are operated by humans there will be a disaster the only question would be when, mods and given the kiwi aversion to any form of regulating business I’d bet on sooner

  1. If it really is good, Labour will try to steal it but then screw it up, leading to higher prices & blackouts.

    • A good number of National voters are those stupid old pricks that think climate change is a hoax, so they will be utterly unimpressed.

    • So instead of applauding Nationals good idea as Martyn has done, you attack Labour?. You are a dumb prick.

  2. Martyn, I totally agree about tidal energy – There must be a multitude of sites around Aotearoa for such generation. Basically 4 times a day guaranteed output that could be used in conjunction with our hydro storage.
    A link from a discussion on The Standard
    National’s policy is to remove resource consent restrictions, not much to get too excited about there. We need the recreation of the NZED responsible for electricity supply.

  3. It actually seems like a good policy. Begs the question, wtf are the Greens doing if they aren’t proposing something like this.

    • Nukefacts. The Greens ? Marama keeps getting smit by chocolate motorbikes, James lost his unicorn, Chloe’s busy hating on Posy in the Splash Cub by moonlight, two got lost in Porirua, Golriz had a mad hare day, the nice one is busy with autumnal pruning, and the others have finally figured that silence becomes them.

  4. It is a very good initiative by the Nats. However the environmental movement will scream against it.

    The great irony is that the people who want to change everything to be carbon and methane free are the very same people and groups who will oppose every local change for building the generation and infrastructure necessary for going carbon free.

    • Is it really environmental groups Ada? Ok it might be if the plan is to wipe breeding grounds etc but it’s just as likely it will be people complaining about having wind or solar farms built next to them.

      • NZ will need offshore windfarms to decarbonize.

        We will see environmental groups opposing those windfarms claiming amenity, spiritual, and historical reasons.

  5. I wouldn’t get too excited because Bishop didn’t have a clue on what he was talking about today on TV with Jack Tame

  6. So taxpayers are going to pay for it, shareholders are going to profit from it and taxpayers pay through the nose to use it.

  7. I do despair that NZ could easily be self sufficient in hydro..yes big investment but once a dam is built it’s built, but no we go with expensive projects that the generators love because they keep supply tight and prices high

    yes I know it means flooding a valley and destroying an enviroment but NATIONAL INTEREST vs some easily transferable skinks…sorry but to me it’s no contest

    • On the West Coast a hydro scheme was muted that would have supplied all the Coast .The river to be damed had had 5 kayak go done in a year and the venture was thrown out by Sage .You would have a big fight to get another dam built anywhere in NZ now.

Comments are closed.