digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New Zealand Commits to 90% Renewable Electricity by 2025

renewableenergyaccess.com — "In a speech this week, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke announced New Zealand's intention to commit to 90% renewable electricity by 2025. The country already uses 70% renewable electricity, primarily hydro- and geothermal power and will continue to increase its use of renewables over the next 20 years."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • openthink, on 11/04/2007, -0/+35great to see some countries really make the commitment. they may end up having to be the examples to countries like the US...in fact they already are models.
    • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15*The US is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon Oil Inc.
    • Murphious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8NZ have a really unfair advantage; they have a crazy amount of geothermal activity which helps out.
      Still, good on them for tapping into it!
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12They may have a slight advantage in one area, but I am willing to bet every country has their own little niche that could help out both the country and the planet. So naturally, it won't be done.

        BIg ups to NZ!
        • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So what is the US' niche?
          • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Gyms!
            think about it, obesity is a problem there right, and you have a lot of people trying to work it off by using treadmills, weights etc.
            that is an untapped wealth of kinetic energy right there, add in maybe some school programs and perhaps some finacial incentives so you get the lazier/poorer participating aswell and you have solved two national problems, obesity and energy production, and it barely costs you anything :)
          • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5dont forget the liposuction to biodiesel possibilities.
          • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Rats :( I thought we were gonna make soap out of that stuff...
          • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1See, not every country has a niche... I was seriously hoping Waiting2awake had some brilliant insight, but alas, just another pointless comment. While I'm incredibly inspired by NZ, I think they benefit from some special circumstances that we here in the US, don't have the luxury of enjoying.
          • puddpunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Find other oil that belongs to other countries?
          • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1bury
      • euphemizeme, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Not to mention a population that's about 1/80 the US pop., a nice warm climate, and a booming tourist industry that prevents them from having to get real jobs. Where do they import all their goods from? Oh yeah, China... this is just a SHELL GAME.
        • SimonGray, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Clearly an expert on Kiwi conditions.

          /sarcasm
          • puddpunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah as soon as he said "nice warm climate" his opinion is pretty much thrown out.
    • gummih, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Iceland is another really interesting example - although a very small population, 99.9% of Iceland's electricity is currently generated from renewable sources (including the electricity for smelting ~2% of the worlds aluminum).
      I spite of being this small, Iceland can still contribute, especially in geothermal research - there are ongoing projects that may benefit countries without conventional geothermal areas. Deep drilling may for instance give 50 MW from a single well.
      http://conferences-engine.brgm.fr/contributionDisp ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_I ...
  • Kizilbash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15I think this will be the place I go to when the Netherlands starts to drown.
    • andyboyd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, the smart investors will be buying up land a few meter higher than sea level in anticipation of it being the new seafront. ;)
    • marlinman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Not if you're into Amsterdam's cafe culture - one of the parties comprising the government in Aotearoa demands (as the price of its support) that the prohibitive dope laws here remain so. And this in a country governed by the so-called "centre left"...
  • lukasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Damn this makes me even more pissed off at the Australian Government; our PM recently set a target of 15% 'clean energy' (might include coal) by 2020. Hopefully getting rid of little Johnny at this years elections might improve things but my cynical side doubts it.
    • Dundasbro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Johnny will improve it... With the plans of scrapping it the moment he gets back in. Thing is I don't think he will be able to pull it off this time :)
    • Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You know, they're a smaller country with less people and a far lower power requirement, it's not entirely unreasonable to think that it may actually be easier for them to migrate to renewable energy sources than a larger country like Australia or larger still, America.
      • aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15In Australia......we have the most solar coverage of any country and more than enough "waste/baron" land to build massive fields of solar collectors. Not to mention the relatively thin crust over SA which is the perfect area to tap into our own geothermal sources (which is already happening). Then also, there are the thousands upon thousands of kilometres of coastline to build massive offshore wind farms.

        But no, we have one of the largest supplies of coal in the world which makes lots and lots of money for our corporations and pollies. They go on and on about the "clean" coal ***** (I mean, how the hell can coal be clean?), when we have so many natural, renewable and CLEAN sources to tap into. Governments and corps are too afraid of change, because it may mean their profits reduce for a little while. GREEN FTW!!
        • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Coal can be clean... it just needs expensive processing and afterburning/filtering which make it much less cost effective than other forms of energy.
        • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@ nihilite - coal can be clean. But obtaining it is not. MTR is a huge problem in WV and is causing unbelievable damage to the local ecosystem and local populace.
      • mobislink, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think if you analyze energy use or carbon emissions per person you will see that your simple argument of population and country size needs to re-evaluated.
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4KEVIN07
      • powrypop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4serious? howard, rudd, whatever. choice is an illusion. rudd is as smarmy and dishonest as everyone else. do you actually think this pre election environmental policy rhetoric will be acted on? it's nonsense. australia makes too much money on dirty industries there is no chance of good environmental policy down here.
        • BerenTW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3don't digg down powrypop he is correct. If you do think there is a actual difference between kevin and johnny on an issue like this then you are probably coming into your first election to vote, and it must be nice to be that young and naive still.
          • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Although I am not overly confident that Rudd can pull off a greener policy (there are certain unions who won't be too happy), I am pretty sure Johnny won't. Remember kids, our drought is because of a 'climate shift', not climate change. Turnbull v Garret? No contest there.
    • Amnesia10, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Australia has a lot of potential to be self sufficient. Nearly all the population live near the coast, so wave energy could be used. As a result of the clear skies and sunny weather solar would be effective. Then there are windmills, Australia has potential.
  • canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29there's only one answer - invade and take their wind and water!
    • theblueprint, on 10/15/2007, -1/+17New Zealand has been receiving non-stop shipments of aluminum tubes...

      Do I need to tell you what the ***** you can do with an aluminum tube?
    • gibler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20First you have to locate us on a map. Free Hint: we aren't part of Australia.
      • canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4i think the main reason the u.s. americans can't locate new zealand on a map is.........
      • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2nah... we'll just keep bombing random countries until we get it right. eventually, you'll get yours.
  • benguild, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Woo, I'm from NZ :P
  • Istrancis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13This is exactly the kind of example other countries worldwide need to follow. Renewable energy sources need to be encouraged and pushed toward the public, hard! If there was some kind of tax break offered to the consumer for using renewable energy I could see this really taking off. It's like with the Toyota Prius and the Ford FFV (FlexiFuel Vehicle). Hopefully more countries will stick to initiatives like this.
    • powrypop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3ford and toyota are amongst the worst industrial pollution offenders there are, especially ford. these hybrid models are aimed at a niche market of people who care about the environment and have money. companies that big should be doing a lot more than making one tokenistic effort at a "clean car".
      • smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Toyota _is_ making an effort. however, you are absolutely right about Ford's PR charade. along with GM, they were both prominent members of the anti-Kyoto-Protocol Global Climate Coalition, whose members have been the primary industry opponents to environmental reform and greenhouse gas reduction. these industry leaders also created most of the pseudo-scientific organizations and "research panels" chaired with industry spokespersons and PR officials posing as authorities on climate change, often with spurious websites spreading FUD and disinformation attempting to manipulate public opinion.

        it is quite telling that Ford still has the least fuel-efficient cars, trucks and SUVs in the united states. they have gone back on their promises to increase fuel efficiency and also shut down the successful Think City project in a fashion paralleling GM's cancellation of the EV1--as soon as changes in the California zero-emissions vehicle policy were successfully lobbied by the automotive industry, Ford killed the battery electric and ordered all vehicles to be destroyed. it was only after strong outcry from lessees and activists did Ford return the vehicles to Norway for sale (see, we _can_ make a difference). similar events also happened with a line of electric Ranger pick-up trucks which Ford also discontinued and ordered to be destroyed. Ford was also found by researchers at the University of Massachusetts to be the 7th worst corporate producer of air pollution due to the poor environmental considerations in their vehicle production process.

        americans need to stop supporting such unethical companies. they have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't care about the environment despite popular demand for greener vehicles. instead, Ford would rather sponsor spurious studies and insult the intelligence of the american public with FUD campaigns and making repeated efforts to hinder the adoption of better environmental policies using their powerful industry lobbies.
    • hokie47, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The auto makers are filling the demand of the consumers right now. There are tax breaks. Auto makers sell to consumers demands. It is bad marketing to push your product just because you can make it, you want the consumer to pull by demanding the product.
  • scottykempf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Good on ya, kiwis. The only way to meet a goal is to set one.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So true. I wish Canada would follow their lead. Good for them.
  • euphemizeme, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Nice to see they're converting 9 of their 10 cars to renewable energy. I just hope they can convince Mrs. Ethel Meyvis to give up her petrol-burning stove so they can meet this goal. THERE ARE ONLY 14 PEOPLE LIVING IN NZ.
    • cjh24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3lol it's ~5 million, give or take a few hundred thousand
      • marlinman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0err... I don't think 8 qualifies as "a few" (pop. 4.2m)
    • benguild, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'm from NZ, I ***** lol'd at that comment.
    • kiwiboyus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Don't forget the million or so of us overseas ;)
  • gibler, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4yeah by screwing up the landscape with wind powered generators and by building yet more dams. It all looks good on paper because the population is small and there are many rivers here for the size. Of course we also export coal (I wonder if that is accounted for).
    • benguild, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Oh, please. They look AWESOME!!!11
    • codenexus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4OK so I have never ever understood why wind generators are so bad and the comparison with Hydro dams is crazy. I shouldn't have even put those two into the same sentence.

      Firstly look at the physical impact on the environment. The footprint is small and it doesn't flood a massive area thus destroying huge regions of land. I've seen one happen and it isn't pretty.

      But I'll give you the biggest reason why I like wind power over a hydro dam. Ever tried removing a dam and cleaning up after it breaks because of an earthquake??? (NZ has a few good fault lines running up and down it). A lot freakin harder than a wind generator.

      So when I see wind generators I don't see something ugly... I see something that makes me feel much, much happier.

      What we honestly need to do though, to keep the "Ewww it looks UGLY!!!" crowd queit (if nothing else), is put wind generators out to sea. There is more consistent wind out there as there is less geographic disturbance. Be creative people and come up with the solution!!! :)
    • ulterior, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes. This announcement is totally hypocritical as we export very large amounts of coal to china where it is then burnt. Out of site out of mind?
  • enivid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8They're joining Iceland's exclusive club!
  • purplepeople, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2i wonder exactly how much this is going to COST the people of new zealand ...
    • marlinman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apparently power bills will increase ~NZ$10 (~US$7) by 2010 as a result of this announcement - the government is still to announce how those who already find electricity here prohibitively expensive will be assisted...
      • SlowOnTheUptake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Given NZ well known position in the past, would the introduction of nuclear power be completely out of the question?
        • puddpunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Although I'm not completely in agreement with my countries nuclear policy, I don't think that atomic power is the answer. It's a stopgap solution with serious issues (danger, waste) and I think that we should be pushing to find something better and not just settle on it.
    • gummih, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I wonder how much it will COST to be dependent on fossil fuels by 2025!
    • smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3wow, what a shortsighted question. saving a few dollars on electricity is not worth the destruction of our environment. and with the popular adoption of any new technology, you decrease the cost of deploying and using it. the cost of letting global warming spiral out of control is far more expensive even on economic terms alone--what is the cost of relocating major coastal populations? what is the cost of increase of insect-borne disease? there are many economic costs associated with global warming. do a quick google search before asking such stupid questions.

      and the longer we wait to start making changes, the more it will cost us to reverse the damage. increased hurricanes have a cost, as do droughts and floods. how can you put a price of self-preservation. at least NZ has the foresight to migrate their infrastructure away from a resource that's quickly being depleted.
    • warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Less than most other fuels in the long run, renewables generally require a quite significant capital cost but have fairly low running costs and long operational lifetimes.
  • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3< golf clap >

    But seriously... good for them.
  • nixonismyhero, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Good job New Zealand. The problem is a nation with less than 4.5 million people can convert to 90% renewable electricity by 2025, while a large nation like the US with 300 million people cannot.
    • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I assume by "cannot" you mean "can, but are too greedy, listless, or stupid to". so i agree.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Considering New Zealand is already at 70% renewable energy, that's a lot different than the USA going from (SWAG here)~20% to 90% in the same time frame.
    • smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5if every city sets this goal for themselves, each would be tackling a much smaller goal but still achieving the same collective outcome. there's no reason why a larger nation couldn't attempt the same thing as what NZ is doing. the only obstacles are people like you who are opposed to any attempts at environmental reform. it only takes a small effort on the part of each person, but when half the population is against environmental reform, it takes twice the effort from the other half. fighting rearguard reactions is primarily what makes this type of policy change and most progressive reforms difficult. it's not a logistical problem, as we have far more resources per capita than NZ, it's mostly a cultural problem due to a large ignorant population.
  • readthis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Now that is a real, courageous leader with vision.
  • Biks, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Everyone says how beautiful and gorgeous New Zealand is yada yada yada. I always thought that If enough of us move to New Zealand..we could make it really suck. (same goes for the Moon and Mars) :-P
  • KiwiMark, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0Kind of ironic that a Prime Minister that wants to build more dams happens to be a dyke!
    • marlinman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Buried. With relish. Remarks like this signify political illiteracy. (And I'm no fan of Clark.)
      • KiwiMark, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Lighten up. How does this comment 'signify political illiteracy'? How about you give me 3 things that prove she isn't gay?
        • marlinman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How about you give me 1 that proves she is.
    • YamiJim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Lol they will probably will need lots of ***** for that.

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/*****
  • mlagana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2the kiwis are always on the ball.
  • Rich711, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1By living like the characters did in LOTR and turning the country into one big Tolkien amusement park once and for all. Silly kiwis.
  • swhite76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Kudos to New Zealand, but come on. Comparing NZ to the US is ridiculous. That's not to say the US doesn't need to do more, but with a fraction of the people and geographic area, it's far easier for New Zealand to do this.
    • pfromg, on 11/28/2007, -1/+0all the good that countries such as NZ or Iceland do , is consumed in a fraction of one day by countries such as the US and china.
      Its a needed , but pointless gesture they are making.And its a real pity that the real ECO criminals are not doing anything at all to change their practices.
    • warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well the fact that they have a smaller population and area make it difficult in some ways they don't have the same resources larger countries do, for a small country to implement renewable energy can be just as difficult the problems are just a little different. If the US wanted to switch to renewable energy 90-100% it could do it and do it quickly it would just require the reallocation of resources and some hard work but it's more than possible to do it, it wouldn't even be a bad thing and it wouldnt be as difficult as people think the technology exists and is effective, the resources are there it just needs a will to do it.
    • smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2why is it easier? we have more resources per capita than NZ. if you want, you can partition the nation up into blocs of 4.2 million people, the approximate population size of NZ, and set the same goal for each bloc to tackle. but i don't know why that should make a difference.

      densely populated coastal regions have access to a variety of natural power sources such as tidal power, solar power, wind power, and undersea geothermic power in some areas. thinly populated regions, such as most of middle america, can easily be supported by wind and solar power installations. and if needed, nuclear power can be used almost anywhere.

      this is a problem of getting people behind the effort, not logistics. it's a cultural problem, and it's not being helped by people simply _assuming_ that it can't be done before any attempts are made.
  • mishsquish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'm originally from Moscow. I have lived in NZ for nearly 7 years. It still amazes me every day how truly untouched this place is. Even cities look.. less imposing.. on the environment.
  • known, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4NZ also has pioneered in implementing "Tax Waste, Not Work".
    • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Is this like carbon credits? I am skeptical that a system like that will work because it is so open to exploitation...
  • orbaldrugger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ka Ora! Ka Ora!
  • Caliente, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3that's truly fantastic. Cant believe how fossil dependent our grid is compared to our trans-tasman neighbours.
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1In the end, I wonder who is going to make money off of this. After all, abandoning current power sources and building new ones, someone is getting a nice fat check. "Environmentalism" = pay day. Don't be so naive not to question some peoples motives and profiteering.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Well, if people are financially motivated to create more renewable and cleaner energy, then I don't see a problem.
  • maiku00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4wtg New Zealand. You are a shining example for the rest of the world.
  • flytronix, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3the australians are really great people.
  • stillasleep00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I've actually been thinking about moving there recently, now I've got an even better reason.

    Go All Blacks!
  • syroncoda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3hooray! something to be happy about! i like new zealand.
  • stevegentile, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0New Zealand should really be applauded for this. I think the US should follow suit and identify sources of renewable energy.
    -Steve
    http://www.vicerex-compared-to-capatrex.com http://www.enzyte-compared-to-capatrex.com http://www.extagen-compared-to-capatrex.com http://www.herbalexcel.com http://www.capatrex.org
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.