Episode Details

The headline on one of the stories this morning said, "vital or bonkers?". Is the new liquefied natural gas terminal announced by the Government yesterday a vital piece of infrastructure that will save New Zealand households hundreds, shore up gaps in our energy supply, give confidence to our manufacturers, or as the Greens are saying, absolutely bonkers for the planet and for our country's energy resilience?  

Energy Minister Simon Watts announced yesterday that the new terminal to be built in New Plymouth should be ready by next year, and will mean that Kiwis no longer need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks. The idea is that liquid natural gas can be imported in large volumes, we'll store it, and then it will be re-gasified to be used when shortages occur during dry years. It's expensive. It's an expensive way of doing it. An expensive “just in case”, but Simon Watts says, well we can't afford not to, otherwise it means the end of businesses.  

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the decision to build a terminal is cooked. Well, you wouldn't be able to cook it unless there was some form of energy supply, so it's not a terribly good analogy because something can only be cooked when there's energy, and what they're doing is providing energy. She said Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders' money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security, and the planet. But as Simon Watts told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, this will quite literally power New Zealand's economy and we can't afford not to do it. 

“The reality is renewables are nice, but the sun doesn't shine during the night and that's when we need firming capacity and thermal capacity. In a dry year when we don't have enough water in those lakes, we have to make that from either gas, diesel, or coal. Coal only covers 50% of us, we've still got a massive gap. That's why there's a price premium in people's bills. Having the certainty of supply of gas to come into that market when we need it means that that risk is mitigated and therefore that price premium that's in people's bills comes off. That's the rationale of what we're doing here.  

“This is a strategic investment also for national security because guess what, if you can't have energy then other aspects of your economy is at risk and we've got to protect those industries that can't run on coal and surprisingly can't run on electricity. There's a lot of industry, heavy industry that needs gas and if we haven't got it domestically in the short term, we need to be able to import it.” 

Yeah. Like absolutely phase out fossil fuels, totally, let's do it and we've been talking about it since probably the 70’s – possibly earlier than that. I mean that's when I first started reading newspapers when I was at primary school and that's when I can remember talking about the need not to rely on fossil fuels. All for it. But you have to have a reliable alternative – a sustainable, inexpensive alternative. You can't just stop producing energy without providing another sustainable source of power. Hoping and wishing for something better and nicer and cleaner and greener is not a strategy.  

You can't just legislate sustainable energy out of thin air. Look at the disastrous result of various governments around the world legislating to force car manufacturers into producing more EVs to save the planet. Major automakers and EV startups have collectively incurred more than $114 billion , and those are real dollars, $114 billion in losses on EVs in the US and Europe, in basically three and a half years between 2022 and early 2026, driven by aggressive government electrification targets that outpaced consumer demand. People weren't convinced. Show me the electrical network that can sustain me being able to power these vehicles. Show me that they're