Risking power shortages
The former Electricity Commission chairman has said that NZ will be at risk of power shortages under the Government’s energy strategy.
NZ currently has one of the highest levels of renewable power in the word with around two thirds renewable. The Government is going to move to 90% renewable, which will involve a lot more wind power.
Now I am a big fan of wind power but it has its limitations. As Hemmingway says:
It was possible to predict the amount of wind energy available over the course of a whole year, but it was “very difficult” to predict how much wind power might be possible at the exact time it was needed to meet demand.
This is why you need a balance. More hydro will help but the RMA makes this very time consuming to get consent for.
The change is estimated to increase power costs by 30% to 40% over a few years. That will hurt badly those on fixed incomes.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Im very worried about this one to.
The Danes who have a very high % of wind power, relie on the Germans , Swedes etc who have direct connections to their grids to top up the peak loads on windless days.
And when there is too much wind, the Danes have to practically give their surplus power to the Norwegians( who rely on hydro which can be stored) to keep them warm, the richest country in europe.
There is still the problem of reactive power near the sources of demand (cities) to keep electric motors going.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Yes, and not only is wind more expensive than gas or coal fired, but if you want to baseload with wind & have gas & coal for peak demand, then reliability becomes a factor: you will have a lot of gas & coal capacity sitting their idle for a lot of the time – which is a waste of capital, and it still needs to be maintained. That increases average generation costs as well.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Yeah I’m comfortable that the long-term future is wind and hydro, but until we have enough hydro, it may be very risky to not allowing any more non-renewable energy.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
There are many problems with wind generation, not just variability of winds
1. Cost to manufacture turbines, including the energy consumed, compared to the energy generated.
2. Cost of generation, currently heavily subsidised to keep wind competetive with other forms of generation.
3. Visual pollution as towers spring up all pover some of the most scenic places.
4. Noise from the rotors affecting those who live nearby.
5. Danger to wildlife, a tower above Adelaide was making mince meat of eagles who flew in to the blades.
5. Danger from the turbines when they fail
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,500902,00.html
6. Who owns the wind? This is currently being played out in German courts
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/ill-wind-ruffles-german-courts-over-turbines/2007/05/13/1178994991681.html
7. Massive areas of land required to generate the same power that can be provided by a 2 acre site.
Wind power? Blow it out your arse!
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“More hydro will help but the RMA makes this very time consuming to get consent for.”
Wind turbine installations are just as problematic under the RMA, the co. I work for has been planning more turbines.
I agree that hydro is one of our best options, but transporting the energy poses its’ own set of problems (pylon upgrade from whakamaru to auck anyone?). The best option is to generate near the load centres, but there’s no significant hydro options near them.
Every year demand grows, but we aren’t keeping ahead of it (note the probable demise of Rodney due to labours’ edict). All we need is another dry year like 1992 and I’m picking that the impacts will be a lot greater.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Again, hydro is susceptible to dry years – remember 1990?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
And one more reference showing the uglier side of wind:
http://www.windaction.org/
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
And if we don’t keep ahead of the demand increase, the prices will rise significantly, and those who don’t have good hedge contracts in the market will suffer. Of course the domestic consumer will feel the pinch first. As a side note here about the market. On the occasional day when there has been some grid security concerns (no, you don’t hear about half of them!), I have seen spot price peaks of many hundreds of dollars per MW and higher, when the average is around 40 dollars(divide by a thousand to get KW), this sort of thing will only happen more regularly the further we slip behind.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Wonder how much energy would be saved if all light bulbs were enrgy saving types, note to Scrooge McCullen, de rate Gst on these and double it on inefficient ones.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
FUGLEY////The Tangawhenua own the wind mate…COLINM….If Hydro power was subsidised to reflect reduced transmission costs at centres near the Dams then industry might be attracted away from Auckland resolving many social problems.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
What’s the worry? Technology is solving the problem. Real Renewable Energy is just around the corner. Welcome 2008.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
The current Auckland load of the total NZ right now (15.25) is 17%
http://www.transpower.co.nz/?id=5970
Auckland is around 30% of the population
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Solar power has yet to unleash its potential. As Frank says: wait for technology. Wind power is still governed by a mindset that says that govt or corporations should provide electricity through big projects.
Even in this day and age of 15% efficient solar converters it is possible to make a house self-sufficient through solar for $30,000. Technologists are working on solar converters that are 50% efficient. Once this technology filters through the system then people will be buying solar like they buy ipods and laptops and small scale capitalism will rule the day.
In the near future houses will be powered by solar converters, electric cars will be laid with solar material, cell phones and laptops will be solar, solar this solar that.
Plants use solar. Solar is the most basic energy source. Hell, we could even draw off solar energy to reduce global warming!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
One of the good things about GST is that there are NO exceptions. Start making exceptions for anything, and compliance costs increase.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Well said Spam.
Why are the only alternatives that usually get publicly debated are wind and hydro. What about tidal, the latest generation coal burners, small pebble-bed reactors, etc.
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me that on the crucial issue of providing encouraging conditions for adequate investment in regeneration, Bradford’s reforms have not succeeded? Is this an indication of misapplication of market philosophy, since markets are often great at determining efficiency, but not so good at providing infrastructural excellence?
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Forget wind power, time for nuclear…
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Kent Parker Says:
“it is possible to make a house self-sufficient through solar for $30,000. ”
I find that a bit difficult to believe. Care to provide a reference?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 am
What about geothermal? NZ is incredibly well placed for this option. Though expensive to install it is pretty cheap to run and works out as being very affordable and competitive over the lifetime of the plant.
Do the obstructions to geothermal lie with the RMA, the Treaty, the location of geothermal resources?
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Hi gander,
Try reading up about solar on sites such as:
http://cope.org.nz/sunpower/apres/theHouse.htm
Quote from the above:
A NZD$2000 to $7500 system can provide low cost insurance to avoid costly downtime due to power loss. A NZD$10,000 to $75,000 system can provide long term to endless power supply.
or:
http://energymatch.com/features/article.asp?articleid=20
and
http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm
The average annual consumption in NZ is 8kwh and it costs about $10,000 per Kwh for a complete installation (ie $80,000). The assumption behind the $30,000 cost is a small house that is energy efficient and has appliances, such as fridges and lights that use less electricity.
The cost of solar installations is diminishing rather than increasing, unlike grid electricity. The assumption is that some day soon the cost benefit graphs of the two options will collide and whammo! everyone in the solar industry hits boomtime.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Sp just how many of us have the money to install an at least $30,000 solar system and at what point, after how many generations does it pay off. BTW does solar require resource consent? If it does no doubt there will be constant planning delays, objections from all the local NIMBYs and requirements for iwi consent.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Project Aqua!
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The information I have about resource consent issues with wind turbines almost always center around the fact that they are proposed to be sighted on land that has regenerating (or virgin) native bush. Or access roads are planned to be cut ( 5m wide !) through said bush. The destruction this sort of behaviour causes is easily used to trip up the RMA.
The solution seems simple: Either pick sites that don’t require mas dessication of native bush or change the RMA. NZ has an abundance of wind, an abundance of hills currently being farmed…. what is the problem here ?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hi Kent,
I have read the articles at the URLs to which you’ve linked, and still I’m less optimistic than you seem to be about solar electricity generation in the near term. The gist of the solarbuzz.com article is that locally generated photovoltaic electricity is approaching cost-competitiveness with the all-in cost of mains electricity delivered from traditional sources. Great for anyone contemplating putting photovoltaic panels on their roof; not yet so great for the power company looking for a way to meet sustainability requirements.
My experience with solar electricity generation is that the capital cost is higher, and the total amount of power generated less, than you expect. That detracts not at all from the pleasure of not paying monthly power bills. (I live off grid, my household generates nearly all its electricity from photovoltaic cells and we still manage to have most mod cons.)
I agree, the cost of solar electricity generation is declining (bar the recent blip when German subsidies drained the world’s supply of photovoltaic panels, which became both more expensive and scarce – I gather production is catching up now), the cost of traditional methods of generation is increasing and solar has a great future. Trouble is, if we waste resources chasing impossible targets, will we be able to afford solar (or other renewable) technology when it does become cost effective?