Vector is starting to run a home solar system package and Top Energy have done some trials for home systems with battery backups that have given them promising results.
These are both lines companies, ie not the generator or retailer of the electricity you buy. It (appears) to work to their advantage to have this household system installed in their networks.
There was also an industrial site in Auckland that installed a large array to help manage their peak energy usage. From memory, what made it viable for them was the depreciation on the panels (they last 15-20 years) rather than the energy savings alone.
On the pricing side it gets complicated becasue different people buy at different rates. If the smelter started to generate power on site, would they get paid retail, wholesale, or their contract rate?
Like you say, the devil is in the details.
So how do you manage to keep the central planning to be both sane, and only a little?
You can easily find that one person's definition of a sane solution to the issue of NZ energy is viewed as wingnut material by others. Also, one person's view of a little intervention is not often the same as another's.
Who gets to choose what is right for the whole country? Who has the sane and reasoned view of reality. (And I'm not saying I do)
Is there an update to the earlier analysis (lost the link sorry) of how MPs voted at the first reading of the Bill and on the Civil Union Bill? Have any MPs shifted their response?
When reading the Milo quotes I couldn't help but recall one of Emma's earlier columns; the one about labelling, in which the labels used are changed to simply say "people". So you get:
"It couldn’t possibly be, could it, that [people] consistently over-promotes [other people], who are often ferociously greedy and lazy but great at fighting their corner, bitching, back-stabbing and boasting to get their hands on promotions and pay rises?"
"[People] don't get to assume the moral high ground. Ever. What they do for a living is incredibly damaging to [other people]"
I will leave you to decide if the broader statements seem truer then the more limited original; but I'm in favour of Emma's last line, and the rest of the column.
At the moment I'm reading Stephen Pinker's book "The better angels of our nature - the decline of violence in history and its causes" which, in a nutshell, says as a species we are getting better at avoiding and disengaging from violence - for a variety of reasons.
Its about twice as long as his other books and is not 'poop science' by any means, but if you want to look at the social and psycological details involved its a fascinating read.
Tracy Chapman, Fast Car in particular, is so depressing it makes me want to slit wrists - and I like Leonard (gloom in a room) Cohen (and Mazzy Star and Elysian Fields...)
I don’t begrudge the PM or Leader of the opposition meeting with their constituents. Everybody has the right to participate in politics, no matter how disturbing we find their ideas. Unfortunately, Russel Norman seemed unable to make this distinction. I hate the Exclusive Brethren with an absolute vengeance – my own grandfather was blocked from entering his brother’s funeral, but I do not think this disqualifies their right to act politically. The same goes for Family First and the Australian Christian Lobby. What is a problem is hiding that contact, and leveraging one group while pretending your views and positions are different.
Well said Sir
Just about time to reinsure our house, guess who doesn't get on the list for quotes...
and a whole new genus of pretty, witty, talking plants that look like Emma
I, for one, welcome our new plantae overlords.