Power Cuts
Bernard Hickey blogs on looming power cuts:
Transpower Chief Executive Patrick Strange said in announcing the launch of a new website to inform the public on lake levels and power usage that compulsory power cuts were possible within three weeks if there was no significant rainfall or a large power station went off line.
The sad thing with this, is it is all preventable. The RMA slows down massively the construction of new renewable energy plants. That is why 75% to 90% of new capacity has been thermal.
This is why a ban on new thermal is very risky. Look absolutely we should be heading towards renewables, but until we have a consenting process that allows renewable power plants to be agreed to in less than half a decade, then it may be a choice between widespread power cuts over some years or another thermal power station.
So my challenge to the Greens is to support RMA changes that will stop NIMBY types massively slowing down or killing off renewable power projects.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Gee, I just got through posting this to another discussion here.. but here goes (again):
Instead of bemoaning the lack of generation capacity and making plans to spend billions of dollars on new hydro, wind or thermal plants — why aren’t we using commonsense?
It makes far more sense to save a watt than to generate five, waste four and deliver that extra watt to the consumer.
A quick “back of the napkin” calculation shows that providing NZ households with *free* energy-saver lightbulbs would have about the same effect as building a decent sized new generation facility — for about 10% the cost.
So why aren’t we doing that?
Well there’s no money to be made (by anyone) from encouraging consumers to use less (ie: spend less on) power is there?
Transpower and Meridian are both SOEs that deliver dividends to government. Just as the government is reluctant to deliver tax cuts (and only does them under extreme duress in an election year) so they are unwilling to reduce the revenues from their SOEs by actually implementing meaningful energy-conservation schemes.
No, far better to spend taxpayers money on new dams, or other schemes that will generate *more* revenue for the tax-trough.
What is wrong with politicians — do they have *no* commonsense, or is their self-interest and personal greed just too much for them to control?
May 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
RMA, RMA, where do I know that law from? What party did introduce that law? Just help to remind me DPF.
[DPF: Actually Labour did, but National passed it. And if National has been re-elected in 1999 it would have been significantly amended. This is what legislating is about - if problems develop in laws, you fix them. Only an idiot would claim that is a reason to have no resource consent legislation at all]
May 27th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
If the government tries to manipulate us into into cutting back on our electrical energy consumption via some expensive advertising campaign over the next few weeks I will be ignoring them. Having worked in the electricity supply industry I know that electricity is one of those things people only notice when they don’t have it. The only way to get movement from those standing in the way of new electricity generation is for them to experience the consequences of not taking action. I hope we do get ‘black outs’ , it might give Wellington the gumption to take action. I won’t be turning off my lights or heater to cover their foolishness.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
NIMBYs aren’t too bad – they can only do so much damage. It’s the NAMBY’s (Not Anyone’s or My Back Yard) that really cause trouble!
May 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“Well there’s no money to be made (by anyone) from encouraging consumers to use less (ie: spend less on) power is there?”
There is no incentive to save power at all. We went through anexercise where we logged our power consumption every day for three months. Then we started turning different things off to see where we got savings. In the end I was saving 15% of power consumption. Did my bill go down by 15%? Like hell. It hardly changed. Line Charge increases ate any savings in consumption right up. As to those energy saving light bulbs – HATE them. Turn on the light and wait in the dim light til they warm up. Horrible things.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Brian, you’re right that the whole structure of our power charges is designed to minimise any savings that might otherwise be had from power conservation.
Instead of having such a huge fixed-portion in the power account, any real conservation programme would work to minimise that fixed portion so that every KWH saved made a greater impact on the monthly account.
And as for those energy-saver bulbs, there are now some that are *very* good, almost indistinguishable from incandescent in both their spectral composition and the time they take to come on.
When I changed all the commonly used bulbs in our house to energy-savers, the effect on our power bill was instant and varied from around $30/month in winter to about $10/month in summer. *THAT* is worthwhile.
Multiply that by the (how many?) say 1.5 million households in NZ and you start to see an enormous saving of up to half a billion dollars worth of energy a year. Of course that’s half a billion dollars that the government won’t get its GST and other percentages of — so we see *no* realistic attempts to reduce consumption.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
They’re a lot better nowadays Brian, heat up almosty immediately & have a less “clinical” sort of light..
Although I do wonder sometimes about the “long life” bit.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
We just need newclear. No really, it’s new and clear. Not that old stuff.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
What about the NIMLPD’s? (not in my large property development)
May 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Aadvark
Well there’s no money to be made (by anyone) from encouraging consumers to use less (ie: spend less on) power is there?
Yes there. By consumers. They face something like a cost-based price for their consumption. They save money by consuming less of it.
A safe conclusion from their decision to buy regular bulbs and not the energy efficient bulbs right next to them at the supermarket is: that’s what they want. If consumers are saying they prefer to finance the extra power station in return for the light they like, well, that’s the answer.
True, government can subsidise things by giving away bulbs – but that is just taking money from taxpayers and then using it to give them something they either don’t want or were getting anyway. How does that help?
May 27th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
>So my challenge to the Greens is to support RMA changes that will stop NIMBY types massively slowing down or killing off renewable power projects.
Why not volunteer to have the renewable power projects built in your neighbourhood? Without any RMA opposition, the energy companies would be able to quickly build dozens of giant windmills in your street and there would be no need to force them on to people who don’t want them.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The Greenies and Gore-ites believe in turning the lights off for 1 hour per year in a kind of symbolic protest about the urgency we should feel to pay Kyoto taxes.
How about, instead of doing one hour a year, we actually put all office lights in NZ on timers and motion sensors?
How about instead of paying Kyoto taxes, we allocate the same money each year into energy efficiency?
May 27th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
> True, government can subsidise things by giving away bulbs –
> but that is just taking money from taxpayers and then using it
> to give them something they either don’t want or were getting
> anyway. How does that help?
But isn’t that the way with most taxation?
I don’t want a Maori TV channel — but they took my tax and gave me one.
I don’t want to watch most of the garbage on TV — but they take my tax and (through NZ On Air) make lots of it at my expense.
I don’t want to pay for my neighbour’s kids through Working For Families and other welfare benefits — bit they take my tax and give it to my neighbour.
At least by giving people energy-efficient light bulbs we’re doing something positive to minimise our Kyoto obligations and reducing the need to build more generators — none of which are pretty or environmentally inert.
In some places I’ve lived, the neighbours’ kids are just snotty-nosed taggers who (thanks to my tax) can afford brand-name sneakers and a ciggie habbit of 20+ per day (while I buy my shoes at The Warehouse and am lucky to drink a single beer in a month). If we’re going to tax people, let’s spend that tax on something useful shall we?
May 27th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
DPF: Actually Labour did, but National passed it.
Righto. That’s why National isn’t the answer. They might introduce laws they don’t get around “fixing” and for the next 15 years we’re stuck with them. And where are National plans to fix RMA? Haven’t heard a lot about them.
But it might be helpful for the next election if National is going to spell out what laws Labour has introduced, but they will pass? We already know about one disaster: ETS.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Why not volunteer to have the renewable power projects built in your neighbourhood? Without any RMA opposition, the energy companies would be able to quickly build dozens of giant windmills in your street and there would be no need to force them on to people who don’t want them.
David, the RMA does not protect against that sort of thing. The market does. Any company trying to buy up land in Thorndon for wind power will pay 10 times the land price and get a lot less wind energy to boot than if they bought a windswept hillside just about anywhere else in the country.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hickey’s a blowhard. Don’t take anything he says seriously
There is no serious lack of capacity – in fact it’s higher now than nearly all of the 90s. What we have is a hydro based system experiencing a dry year and that means you have to manage carefully. Most years we have excess rain and have some of the cheapest power around.
some say “we don’t want to manage, we must have unlimited access to power”, but don’t then ask “how much will that cost, who will benefit and who will pay?”. Those are really important questions that need to be answered, because someone is going to have to and based on current markets, it’s not going to be the industrials that ride the market and complain when it goes against them – it’s probably going to be you and me with little market power.
You have to ask, if power was so important to them, why don’t they build their own reserves? That they don’t means they don’t value the risk highly enough to manage it. So either the risk is actually not as high as they say, or they are hoping to pass the risk and cost to everyone else.
I agree the thermal moratorium is a potential problem in the future, but it actually doesn’t matter now because it doesn’t exist, and so has had no impact on the current situation which is entirely weather driven. Unless you want to lessen our dependence on hydro, the cheapest option for the country may be in managing demand every now and then.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Aadvark: no argument from me there, except possibly over Maori TV (it might be argued to have a public good aspect (in the technical sense) missing from other examples including bulbs). Subsidising light bulbs just adds to a long, sorry list.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Insider:
some say “we don’t want to manage, we must have unlimited access to power”
Nobody is saying that.
, but don’t then ask “how much will that cost, who will benefit and who will pay?”. Those are really important questions that need to be answered
Leave the cost to the companies (they specialise), both consumers (since there is undercapacity) and companies (must be profitable if they want to build) will benefit , and consumers will pay for it in proportion to their use.
, because someone is going to have to and based on current markets, it’s not going to be the industrials that ride the market and complain when it goes against them – it’s probably going to be you and me with little market power.
Actually large users pay a much more dynamic rate. When spot prices go up, they are the ones that pay most or all of the increase. Of course, when new supply comes on and prices drop, they will also see a larger share of the benefit.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
At least the meat companies are helping reduce demand by closing down Freezing Works, and Industry like Fisher & Paykel are moving to China where they can use their power made with our coal to build their appliances so that is also helping reduce demand. I have an energy saving bulb in my toilet where it is unlikely to break allowing toxic mercury to escape. It really doesn’t matter if the proletariat are a little cold this winter but heaven help us all if there is another power cut at Parliament.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Ben
some in effect are saying that in my view in their lack of perspective over power supply and the options. There are frequent demands to unshackle the RMA etc (as above) yet there is no evidence it is hindering development in a way that is risking overall security – might be hindering individual companies’ ambitions. Meridian were claiming last week their plan for the Waitaki was ‘essential’ for national security – utter crap.
the Who will pay question is important in the context of calls for intervention. If it is left to the market, your comments stand, but if the taxpayer is being asked to build new gen then those are vital for decision making and allocating costs. It’s all to easy to smear these things.
Yes insudtrials do pay a dynamic rate and respond to the market, some also get paid to shed load. and don;t you notice how they complain loudly and make dire warnings about lost production when the market operates against them?
And on no money to be made on conservation, there are successful companies operating but perhaps the gains are fairly incremental – don’t believe the scale of half of them the assumptions used are often shonky.
But aardvark raises a point about fixed charges. Seems a trend to load up as much as possible on the fixed charge to remove exposure to the ‘at risk’ portion, the cost of energy. Not sure if that sends the right signals.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Fuck me. When did we become a third world country? (yeah, I know, 1999)
As for giving everyone energysaving bulbs, will the Government then sign up to a “no mercury” treaty which means we’ll all be hit again for disposing of the fuckers? (the lightbulbs, not the Government…mercury poisoning is too good for most of them)
May 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The RMA was developed by the reforming Labour Government and was passed by the National Govt and shepherded by Upton.
Both governments intended the RMA to deregulate the use of land and to focus on environmental effects. However the planners never sleep (even though the RMA never mentions planning or zoning) and the courts and “expert” witnesses and planning school graduates have developed judge made law over the years until the RMA is now more intrusive and prescriptive than the Town and Country Planning Act. The RMA removed all reference to protecting rural land from urban expansion because it is a nonsense and talked only of protecting the life supporting qualities of SOIL. (ie stop erosion etc.) But the courts now talk routinely about protecting the “integrity of the plan” as though the plan is part of the natural and physical environment. This stymies much innovation and is typical Soviet style planning.
This recent decision from Judge Thompson stymies the effects based analysis on which RMA professionals have hung so much over the last few years. In the struggle between effects and objectives/policies the latter are definitely finding traction. This will be the end of the ‘good idea’ of the RMA.
The decision focuses on the planning documents and means that if a plan says water runs up hill then it does.
This is NOT what Simon or Geoffrey intended in the permissive purpose of the RMA!!
Appellant McKenna, AJ and JD
Respondent Hastings District Council
Decision Number W016/08
Court Judge CJ Thompson; KA Edmonds; WR Howie
Judgment Date 4/04/2008
SYNOPSIS
This was an appeal by Mr and Mrs McKenna (“M”) against the refusal of consent by Hastings DC (“the council”) to the subdivision of their property at Middle Rd, Havelock North (“the site”) into two lots. The site, a former orchard on the western boundary of Havelock North, contained a dwelling and smaller residential unit. The proposal was to effect the subdivision so that the dwelling was on one lot of 4018 m², with the remainder (2.5 ha) on the second lot, on which the Ms planned to build a new house. As regards the District Plan (“the plan”), the site was in the Plains zone and the proposal was a non-complying activity.
The Court stated that the issue was whether to allow the application would be so contrary to the relevant provisions of the plan that it would harm its integrity and effectiveness. The council was concerned that the subdivision, although not involving a significant loss of productive soil, would set a precedent for subdivision of other properties in the Heretaunga Plains. The council submitted that the proposal was contrary to objectives and policies in the plan seeking to minimise the expansion of urban activity onto the versatile soils and to maintain the life supporting capacity of rural resources of the Plains. The Plains zone contained a policy seeking to ensure that any subdivision resulted in properties capable of supporting a diverse range of activities that utilised the soil resource in a sustainable manner.
The Court found that the proposal was contrary to the overall thrust of the objectives, policies and other provision of the plan, which aimed to promote the sustainable management of the Heretaunga Plains land resource. An ad hoc subdivision and residential development on the site would be directly contrary to the policies in the plan. The Court acknowledged M’s argument that the council’s position appeared to be policy-based, rather than effects-based, resource management, but stated that that s 104(1) required a decision-maker to have regard not just to effects, but to local, national and regional planning instruments. The Court stated that “things do not begin and end with effects”, and although it sympathised with M’s position, this was a situation where the clear terms of the plan should prevail. The appeal was declined. Costs were reserved.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
But aardvark raises a point about fixed charges. Seems a trend to load up as much as possible on the fixed charge to remove exposure to the ‘at risk’ portion, the cost of energy. Not sure if that sends the right signals.
As long as it is cost based then it does – and I imagine a significant part of the cost of delivering electricity is the line to your house, so it would make sense that your bill does not move too much even if you pull because the energy use. I strongly suspect it is cost based but I’m not sure. Lines companies are regulated on cost plus aren’t they?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
OWen
What do you think about this new guidance for local councils on climate change the MfE put out today? Send a shiver down your spine?
Ben
The fixed daily charge is a bit of a wash up of all non energy costs in my view. It is not just the lines cost – also covers metering, profit, admin operating costs. My concern is that it is not transparent and costs are being loaded up there to shift more revenue into non risk elements. I could be wrong and not taking competitive forces into account fully
May 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Ben>David, the RMA does not protect against that sort of thing. The market does. Any company trying to buy up land in Thorndon for wind power will pay 10 times the land price and get a lot less wind energy to boot than if they bought a windswept hillside just about anywhere else in the country.
So “NIMBY” is really just a term for poor people not wanting to have the value of their properties devalued?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
We had a power station installed and running at Stratford. It was gas turbines so would only be used for the peak of peak loads and when aother station tripped off line.
Guess what . its was owned by the only major private generator, Contact, who promptly removed the turbines to sell off and give the profits to its majority overseas owners.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Maybe it couldn’t compete with Pete Hodgson s diesel burning Whirinaki emergency power plant that’s chomped through over 7 million litres of diesel over the past few months?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
So the tosspots in Wellington are preaching doom again and we all must save power. The can go and fuck themselves, the last time they cryed wolf the country managed to save enough to save their sorry arses. This time, no way!!. I note the power companys calling for savings and then charging more because power is scacre, just so they can make up difference, the bastards screw you both ways.
I read that Dear Leader had a hissy fit because the power didn’t come back on straight away the other day. Poor we dear, must be fucking dark in the bunker when the power fails.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Ok guys heres another angle – i was surprised that the lights going out in Welly caused so much angst. Get a bloody grip. Lets face it, it has shown us to be a bunch of lily-livered wimps and that includes Helen. Shit, it went black – so bloody what. The govt has spent millions on getting us all emergency ready for the “big one.” so when a shadow of the real thing passes over head we all whinge – It was dark .-we couldn’t use our computers – the stairs were cloaked in black … Where were the torches, the can do kiwi attitude, the ” never let a chance go by ” kiwis I love? Obviously the biggest sin of this current administration is that this govt has taught as all to expect so much and do so little for ourselves.
Personally I woud have reached for the torch that should have been in the emergency kit , ( yip i have one in my bag) grabbed the troops and done a bit of team building. no emails,some korero, a group grope for those who needed it and a sessh on how we shoud react when things really go pear shaped.
That being said, the beehive basement is a dog and I speak from experience.
No government has spent enought money on resourcing it the way it should be.We need a national comms central but my bet is that when we are faced with a real hairy arsed crisis that things wont be managed from the buzzy bee bunker for long.
Yesterdays wee power cut was but a reminder of what life could be like we when are faced with a full blown environmental verison of a cluster fuck but it showed me that we aint ready at all – no way – It will be bad and when we the light go out big time, those in wellington will still think the most important thing will be to blame the government….. Sad, very sad.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
davidp
So “NIMBY” is really just a term for poor people not wanting to have the value of their properties devalued?
If the ‘poor people’ you refer to are consistently located on windswept hills in the middle of nowhere then yes.
Otherwise, no.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Guess what . its was owned by the only major private generator, Contact, who promptly removed the turbines to sell off and give the profits to its majority overseas owners.
So what? unless you have insight about the costs and revenues that equipment was earning, I’d have thought it perfectly reasonable to think plant sitting idle for 99% of the time may in fact not be paying its way. New Zealand is poorer if the businesses in it are forced to tie up capital in stock that sits idle and doesn’t justify itself.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Ben>If the ‘poor people’ you refer to are consistently located on windswept hills in the middle of nowhere then yes.
Or if the road to get to that hill runs through your neighbourhood and the windmill builders need to widen it to transport huge quantities of gravel and cement past your place.
Or if you can see that hill, and know that you’ll be looking at the rusty remains of hundreds of windmills long after they’ve stopped generating power because the gear boxes failed and weren’t replaced because windmills were a 2008 fad. And no one is going to remove the things because they’re enormous and the concrete bases are the size of a bus.
Or maybe you’re not poor, but like to enjoy the wild areas of NZ without seeing structures taller than the BNZ tower with the equivalent of spinning 747s attached to them. We should be trying to protect the environment, not “tag” it with ugly development in return for negligible amounts of electricity.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
There is no power crisis, no chance of blackouts. I have heard Helen CLARK and David CUNLIFFE repeatedly assert this in Parliament when questioned by Gerry BROWNLEE, and what is more Winston has backed them up……Hmmm CLARK always lies and Cunliffe’s constant covering up of Annette KING’s ample posterior in respect of the Hawke Bay Hospital Board Scandle seemed to display a lack of veracity. As for Winston ???????????
May 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Back to the NIMBYs or the Village Green Preservation Society (great album), what about that pseudo intellectual/sports/artistic lot down in Central Otago. They build houses in the middle of remote and vast locations, destroying what has been unspoilt vistas and then they try to stop anything that resembles a windmill.
But as alluded to here, the talk on the radio today was about forced savings. WTF. With all of this talk about tax cuts etc, I’m sorry but with energy saver light bulbs in your house and other insulation and heating adaptations, not only will you be able to save more money than tax cuts will give you, you’ll negate the need for forced savings.
Why is it also, that households are asked to turn off lights in the rooms they aren’t in (sensible) yet a drive through town will see all manner of empty buildings, car lots and offices all illuminated from the outside with massive flood lighting. Why do shops need to be heated to resemble the interior of the desert, why are there so many bloody automatic doors. Why are wasteful companies not as worried about saving energy and their bottom line as efficiencies in productivity?
It’s all about the dollar people. If you need to heat your house in a way that costs, fine, but there are ways that kiwis can make bigger savings that miniscule tax cuts could produce. The bottom dollar people. Red Herrings about RMAs and other development hurdles are fine ways to say I’m not willing to look outside the blinkers for another option.
DavidP. Have you ever driven the road between LA and Palm Springs. Those are not rusty trendy 2008 fad generators, and to tell the truth the allure of free renewable energy like that is somewhat poetic. Your ideas are all together just too defeatist. Are you wanting something handed on a plate. Unlike a Dam, if (and a massive if) one was to take down a wind farm, that is quite possible, the rather dystopian picture you paint is just all together not true and of course typically reactionary. The hills out the back of San Bernadino (wonderfully 70s song) are anything but what you describe.
We should be engaging wind, solar, tidal, wave as well as new Hydro etc
May 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
One problem with wind-power is that one of the “once in a hundred year” weather events that are arriving every few years now, has the potential to wreak havoc if it scuttles through our wind-farms.
Yes the makers claim they’ll withstand hurricane force winds — but everything has its limit.
What happens if we have a major civil emergency and it takes out a huge percentage of our power generation, just when we need it most?
Me… I’m all for tidal energy. Totally reliable every day – day in, day out — and since the generators are sunk well below the waves, storms aren’t an issue. Hydro can just fill in the patch between the tides when the generators stop turning.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Usually it is only the first windfarm in an area that is a problem. After that people dont mind and further windfarms make it through the consent process with no problems. Just look at Palmerston North where I used to live. There was a big fuss about the first windfarm 10 years ago, but since then about 5 expansions or new projects have happened with more in the pipeline. There has been very little controversy about any of these, and most people in PNth dont care about them at all.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
>DavidP. Have you ever driven the road between LA and Palm Springs. Those are not rusty trendy 2008 fad generators, and to tell the truth the allure of free renewable energy like that is somewhat poetic.
I have driven that route. The Mojave and Sonoran deserts are incredible places. They look much better in their natural state than covered in industrial structures. I think your romanticising of “green” power is biasing your perception… would you be talking about, say, an oil refinery built in otherwise pristine desert in “poetic” terms?
All power generation is going to have an environmental cost on its immediate area. But at least a nuclear or other thermal station only covers a few hectares, whereas the equivalent wind farm will cover the area of a very large city or of a medium sized national park.
I’m becoming convinced that the biggest threat to the environment are Greens. Biofuels are likely to drive tigers to extinction and clear half the Amazon, while managing to starve millions of Africans. And now they want to cover wilderness areas with thousands of massive power generators, along with their maintenance and access roads and their huge concrete bases. And all for tiny amounts of power. It’s a tragedy.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
National always seem to say they will reform the RMA but they never say what they will do with it. It is very easy to complain about, but when you get to looking at how to ‘fix’ it it is somewhat more difficult. In general for Resource Consents and District Plans the RMA leaves councils a clean slate about how to go about these things, only a few dates and some other minor things are described. Therefore councils can largely do what they want with their plans and processes.
The options for National seem to be limited unless they want to reinvent the wheel.They could introduce much more prescriptive RMA, telling councils exactly what they can and cant do, but this would be open to interpretation and no doublt end in many legal battles. Another obvious thing would be to reintroduce standing, which means only those judege to be affected by a development can submit. this may help in some cases, however for most schemes there are likely to be some agrieved parties who live nearby and are thus affected and any opposition could be funelled through them.
Also note that 95% of proposal are accepeted non-notified, which means there are no submissions, so standing would only have an affect for a small number of proposals.
Note the RMA also helped stop plans for a large coal fired station near Whangarei so the RMA is not biased against thermal generation. Most new generation has been thermal because closed power stations have been able to be reopened whcih is always going to be much easier than starting afresh. I’m guessing much of the new generation comes from Huntly which is very large.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Ghost
You are deluded. COntact closed down an old, clapped out and inefficient plant and built a larger new station next door in the 90s and have plans for additional units. 30 year old turbines have no value. They are too hard to move and reassemble. It;s cheaper to buy a new one.
aardvark
Re wind it’s not just the windy days we have issues with – the very cold peak demand days are often still. And of course don’t forget all the back up gen required to cover when wind isn’t generating at capacity (60 to 80% of the time)
May 28th, 2008 at 5:15 am
Didn’t Earth Hour sort this out? Admittedly I didn’t turn off my lights, but I was told others did. Oh well, perhaps we’ll have to try something else.
There is too much messing around here. We need to build coal fire power stations. For NZ at the moment it is the best choice as we have heaps of coal. Nuclear is another option, which is fine if people accept it. Global Warming is a myth anyway, and even if they do find some relationship with CO2, New Zealand is a tiny player compared to China which opens a new coal power station every week.
As for conserving energy, we need a reality check here. The best way to do this would be to introduce spot pricing to consumers as mentioned about. When the power gets expensive, a little alarm bell rings and you run around your house turning everything off. Your growing power bill is constantly displayed next to your phone. In principle this is a good idea, but consumers will be wary.
They should be too. Because NZ doesn’t have enough generation. Once we have another 500MW of generation, or so, and power prices fall back to more reasonable levels, then we can have a discussion about peak billing, etc. For now, consumers won’t wear it.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:12 am
DavidP: what are you on about? Your original point was that anyone who opposes the RMA should be prepared to have turbines in their street, as if that is what the RMA prevents. It isn’t.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
> I’m becoming convinced that the biggest threat to the environment are Greens.
Although I agree with this. Any movement that so completely misunderstands incentives and how markets work is going to do damage.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:47 am
>DavidP: what are you on about? Your original point was that anyone who opposes the RMA should be prepared to have turbines in their street, as if that is what the RMA prevents. It isn’t.
You misunderstood. My point was that there would be no need to change the RMA to lessen the ability of people to object to and therefore delay windmill projects in their neighbourhoods if the people who like windmills volunteered to have them in their own neighbourhoods. If no one objects to them, they’ll sail through the approval process.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Reforming the RMA? How is this for a start.
5. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to promote economic growth and development by enabling people, families and groups with shared or common interests to manage the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, so as:
(a) To provide for their own social, economic and cultural wellbeing, and
(b) To provide for their retirement, and
(c) To provide for their own health and safety, and
(d)) To initiate, respond to, and adapt to change, and
(e) To promote personal mobility, and
(f) To promote their access to energy.
while –
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals and petroleum) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of current and future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, and soil and ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment which might arise as a result of any proposed use or development of natural and physical resources.
[Exp Note: Most should need no explanation but the addition to (c) is to prevent councils simply requiring these actions when writing district plans rather than when considering applications and without compensation. This is an attempt to restore some balance and to emphasise the enabling intention of the Act. Question; Should we include “by enabling and assisting people and communities etc…”? When I was in ACC under the T and CPA we used to actively assist people to prepare their applications. Now applicants are told that staff cannot assist because they have to report at arm’s length etc.]
The differences to the present purpose are subtle but significant.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Or this:
(5) A regional council may not intervene in the management of the effects of the use, development and subdivision of land by territorial local authorities except as they those activities impact directly on the soil, water and air.
(6) In particular, regional councils may not ration the supply of land by imposing direct controls on the use and development of land within districts by means of metropolitan urban limits, urban growth boundaries, infrastructure limit boundaries or other rules or boundaries which artificially restrict the supply of land available for use, development and subdivision in the region by imposing general and wide-ranging constraints rather than being specifically and directly related to effects on soil, water, and air, and while recognising that:
(a) land is not in short supply in New Zealand and hence does not need to be rationed; and
(b) land is only productive as a result of human activity; and
(c) the Act focuses on soil as a resource, not land or any particular use of land.
[Exp. Note: Most of these are self-explanatory, and as a group are designed to refocus Regional Councils on soil water and air, and keep them out of land use planning and Smart Growth.]