If National wins ...

[winner69]

I'm all for a revolution - said it many times

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11749955

Won't happen 2017 but hopefully in 2020, if not before

EZ - Labour have lost the opportunity to be part of this. Election 2017 might be their last as a 'major' party (for want of a better word)

[elZorro]

Oh dear, you really are projecting the past straight into the future with not a lot of consideration for what’s happening in the present, El Zorro.

This will go on for a little. . .

First up, let’s look at your supertankers. Now, given that there are only two continents in the world, the only need for supertankers is to move oil to the American continent from the EuroAfricanAsian continent, or vice versa. Oh, and to New Zealand, of course. Better dredge Northport in Whangarei, so it can cope, hadn’t we!

Now, the American continent is self-sufficient in oil (Canada/Venezuela/USA). As is the EuroAfricanAsia continent (Russia/Nigeria/Arabia). So there’s no need for anything other than pipelines and tank-cars on a rail network.

Did someone say “rail”? Ah yes. 14 days by train from China to Germany, 20 days less than by sea. Given that Euro/Africa/Asia are contiguous, there’s a lot of scope for those “One Belt/One Road” initiatives to expand.

Second up, why oil anway?

At the moment, a lot of oil is burnt as transport fuel. Electric vehicles take that away. So we don’t need so many supertankers anyway, because there’s far less demand for the oil they transport.

And after all, solar doesn’t need fuel, nor does hydro, and both run 24/7, so there’s no shortage of transport fuel. Just flip the switch and recharge.

Third up, and last but not least, cheap goods from China. Yep, harder to come by in the Americas (and New Zealand, of course), but not in the Euro/African/Asian continent, with it’s rail network (electrified, of course).

So yes, we will see massive disruption, but it won’t come as you seem to anticipate. There won’t necessarily be less trade, in fact there will probably be more trade. But the patterns and the mechanisms will be quite different from what we see today. Intra-continental, rather than inter-continental.

Oh, a PS - as for your scientists cowering in their bolt-holes, well I rather think that those bolt-holes won’t be in some inaccessible place offshore from one of the two continents.

Points noted, GTM. But I'm not sure how electric aircraft would work, we'd still need a lot of transport fuel for those, and while we could grow our own fuel, it needs an ongoing amount of fertilisers, which are getting to be in short supply. Fusion or fission would seem to be the most likely future energy source on a large scale, and if that energy came cheap enough, we could fix a lot of our other issues.

Here in NZ, if we wanted to replace all motor vehicles with electric drive ones, we'd need to double the capacity in our electrical network.

[elZorro]

I'm all for a revolution - said it many times

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11749955

Won't happen 2017 but hopefully in 2020, if not before

EZ - Labour have lost the opportunity to be part of this. Election 2017 might be their last as a 'major' party (for want of a better word)

I think Bryce is being a bit impractical with that article. Voters don't go too far out of their way to learn about NZ politics. If you have to reach them on TV, it costs money. Although I'd be surprised if Labour really gets $35mill a year from the taxpayer to spend within the party, they scrabble for every cent, so if must be part of the parliamentary budget.

I don't think you should be so brave as to write Labour off this far out from the 2017 election, for one it's Labour and the Greens, two we don't know what Winston is doing, three - no tax cuts next time unless National runs up a huge amount of borrowing again, four, what about the TOP party? You could just be more honest and state that you'd prefer more of the same, or you don't like the sound of some of Labour's policies because it might have a small negative effect on your personal equity, as part of a move towards less inequality.

[GTM 3442]

Points noted, GTM. But I'm not sure how electric aircraft would work, we'd still need a lot of transport fuel for those, and while we could grow our own fuel, it needs an ongoing amount of fertilisers, which are getting to be in short supply. Fusion or fission would seem to be the most likely future energy source on a large scale, and if that energy came cheap enough, we could fix a lot of our other issues.

Here in NZ, if we wanted to replace all motor vehicles with electric drive ones, we'd need to double the capacity in our electrical network.

Ah, you conservatives! Everything's a problem to be viewed through the distorting lens of the past.

With good rail, why do you need electric aeroplanes? Won't airships do? Why nuclear, when 24/7 solar is so much more economical?

Fertilizer in short supply? Which fertilize - or just the current sources?

Is having to upgrade the national grid such a bad thing? Such a big job?

You Conservative Cassandras seem determined to make sure that we don't address the issues. You may be fond of sackcloth and ashes, but they don't suit my complexion.

[macduffy]

With good rail, why do you need electric aeroplanes? Won't airships do? Why nuclear, when 24/7 solar is so much more economical?

I guess that I should plead guilty to conservatism but solar power - for air transport - will have to move well beyond being able to support its own weight and that of its pilot before it becomes a practical solution. Or am I "viewing the problem through the distorting lens of the past" ?

[GTM 3442]

I guess that I should plead guilty to conservatism but solar power - for air transport - will have to move well beyond being able to support its own weight and that of its pilot before it becomes a practical solution. Or am I "viewing the problem through the distorting lens of the past" ?

Mornin' macduffy.

Nothing wrong with conservatism. If I may paraphrase Disraeli, conservatism means "conserving the good stuff". And I'm all in favour of conserving the good stuff.

So let's get out our distorting lens and have a look at the past. Cast your mind back to (say) 1880. Heavier-than-air travel and transport was impossible. The technology of the time was simply incapable of constructing an airframe capable of supporting the dominant power source of the time - the external combustion steam engine.

Orville and Wilbur wouldn't have gotten off the ground, with the Wright Flier loaded down with a couple of tons of coal. Cue the internal combustion engine. Cue the steam turbine. Once again, external combustion. Then "bingo", the internal combustion turbine, aka the jet engine.

Now let's snap forward to the present - as for electric-powered air travel, well you're probably right.

But if, as I suggest, most future trade is conducted within the two continents, then a decent electric rail system does away with a lot of the need for air travel. After all, how long does it take to get from Barcelona to Madrid by air, compared to by rail? And how often is that extra 40-45 minutes a critical (or even important) factor.

What I find odd is the willingness, indeed the determination, to chain ourselves to the past, and to let past limitations constrain our view of the possibilities inherent in the present.

The mindset that, when confronted by a carbon-free electric vehicle fleet, immediately responds "Oooooh! Can't do that, sorry, the transmission network won't cope!".

Proper conservatism is a good thing, it's the "radicals" with blinkers and handcuffs that you have to watch out for.

[macduffy]

No argument there, GTM, but I thought you were making a case for solar-powered air transport. I'll go back and re-read post 11607.

(Not sure where all this fits into "If National wins...." ? )

Cheers

[GTM 3442]

No argument there, GTM, but I thought you were making a case for solar-powered air transport. I'll go back and re-read post 11607.

(Not sure where all this fits into "If National wins...." ? )

Cheers

Afternoon mcduffy. . .

Well no, I'm not sure about how this fits with "if National wins. . . " either. but it's been an interesting detour, and much preferable to the usual "National slags Labour slags National, slags Labour and everybody slags United Future. . . . ad nauseam"

Cheers

[elZorro]

Afternoon mcduffy. . .

Well no, I'm not sure about how this fits with "if National wins. . . " either. but it's been an interesting detour, and much preferable to the usual "National slags Labour slags National, slags Labour and everybody slags United Future. . . . ad nauseam"

Cheers

GTM, I'm all for using solar/wind, but when it costs $17,000 to set up enough gear to run a small workshop, I draw the line at the moment. Even though heat engines like car motors are about 20% efficient in using the energy in fuels as motive power, it's still a vast amount of energy to replace. So you can't just put up an electric transport fleet idea, without doing the rest of the numbers.

Has the Kaikoura earthquake helped National's chances in a perverse way? maybe.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...nal-Government

I found one of the comments to this article very interesting. Here's John Key personally "tackling" Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook paying more taxes here. He's sniffed the wind, perhaps it's time to be doing something.

OK John, open up your books and let's see how much tax you've been paying. Simple. After that, you can hound everyone else.

[dobby41]

I found one of the comments to this article very interesting. Here's John Key personally "tackling" Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook paying more taxes here. He's sniffed the wind, perhaps it's time to be doing something.

OK John, open up your books and let's see how much tax you've been paying. Simple. After that, you can hound everyone else.

I'm quite happy for JK to tackle facebook head on. Too much beating about the bush here.
I didn't realise that there was doubt that JK paid his taxes?