Wind powered Wellington
A $440 million wind farm with future capacity to power Wellington was connected to New Zealand’s electricity grid yesterday.
Twenty 111m-high turbines at Meridian’s West Wind project in the hills of Makara began spinning to generate enough energy for 17,000 homes.
By the end of this year it will use 62 turbines, which have 40m-long blades, to generate enough power for 70,000 homes – the whole of Wellington.
Cool. You get a good view of them from Hawkins Hill.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: wind turbines
April 30th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I don’t expect it will make one iota of difference to New Zealand’s carbon output.
It will increase the cost of power nicely, though.
Plus they look great.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Except when it’s not windy.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Good thing we have dams to take up the slack?
April 30th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Ben, Michael Treblock is an expat kiwi economist. He hardly has a good grounding in energy science, eh?
The Worldwatch Institue tends to disagree.
Also, Denmark has no hydro power. Integrating Wind and Hydro has proved highly effective in Oregon, And is expected to work well in Quebec when it comes online. So why not here?
As for Makara, it’s great to see the Nimbys didn’t get their way.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:41 am
We could do with more dams though. And a big power station (nuclear
) at Auckland, so they don’t have to build transmission lines through the Waikato.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Gazzamaniac,
The south coast generally gets a lot of wind. I have a view of the Brooklyn wind turbine from my lounge and there are few days it is not turning. I would assume that the new wind farm will be just as operational.
All of which takes some pressure of the hydro capacity, which has been shown to be less than capable.
And it has pissed of a few nimby’s over Makara way, which is a side benefit!
April 30th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I think wind farms look cool.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Except when it’s not windy.
You could put some more along the runways of the Wellington Airport… now thats always windy.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:49 am
slightlyrighty – not disagreeing with you at all. Just pointing out that it’s pretty difficult to store wind, and you need to have a contingency in case there is none, and the Cook Strait cable fails at the same time (I see they are using the older cable at the moment as the new one failed).
April 30th, 2009 at 10:49 am
The major problem is the cost. The wind generators are relying on the ETS to subsidise their form of electricity generation and penalise others.
(Plus they don’t want you to talk about their “bird processors”.)
April 30th, 2009 at 10:50 am
$440 million for 70,000 homes seems quite cost efficient/17,000 doesn’t
About $6000 per household at 70,000 or about $25000 for 17000
Does anyone know which?
April 30th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I would rather we put that money into a space elevator, but it’s good to see we are using alternative ways of generating base load electricity ….
April 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
No, wind turbines aren’t depending on the ETS. Because of the prevailing trade-winds there are a number of sites in NZ that can generate power very competitively (assuming they can be built in a timely fashion and in sufficient scale). One of the issues is that getting planning permission for these prime sites is difficult (e.g. the Te Waka site in the Hawke Bay, rejected on the grounds that Maori spiritual values would be offended).
If you go to alternative sites, then the cost per kw does rise because the wind flow is not sufficient. In effect, there is no blanket ‘wind turbines’ are inefficient rule here. Wind turbines have got a lot more efficient compared to 10 or 20 years ago. If we can build them in good sites, it is quite competitive.
Wind turbines also have the advantage of a lot easier cleanup at the end of their life- coal or gas fired turbines tend to create a lot more toxic wastes with commensurately higher cleanup costs.
NZ also have the merit of bugger-all endangered flying birds inhabiting bare, wind-swept slopes. A kiwi or weka or takahe or kakapo is going to be very determined to kill itself in a turbine. Harriers are neither endangered nor endemic. And I’m completely comfortable with the idea of a turbine taking out magpies.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Banana Llama wrote alternative ways of generating base load electricity
Wind energy is not base load electricity.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Senzafine>Also, Denmark has no hydro power.
But it can import electricity from Germany and France.
Also, Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe. Why would we want to do that to ourselves?
April 30th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Major.
It is Wellington, when is it Not windy
April 30th, 2009 at 11:59 am
It’s windy in Wellington because Auckland sucks so much
April 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The wind farm is connected to the national grid – it’s not quite correct to say that it is powering Wellington… It could be powering you a little bit wherever you are. It has been located on a site with good wind frequency and intensity characteristics, which just happens to be over the hills behind Wellington.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Davidp, and why do you think it has the most expensive electricity? Because it imports hydro generated power form norway.
The point davidp, is that wind power integrates extremely well with a hydro base. Think of the lakes like big backup batteries for when the wind is not blowing.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
It is Wellington, when is it Not windy
I agree that it is one of the best sites to have a wind farm. But despite the prevailing climate, the wind speed still varies. Sometimes it’s a hurricane, and sometimes just a gentle gale.
(No, no. Less than that.) The point is, that it is not a steady-state generator, and nor do you have control over the energy input. You have to have something else (eg hydro, coal, gas, nuclear) that is more controllable and steady-state to even out the humps.
Fred Dagg warned about “erg surges”!
April 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The trouble is, the hydro lakes are not “backup”, their electricity is committed already. The backup is coal fired electricity generation.
Maybe the Makara site is one of the few places that wind power does make economic and environmental sense. But what Major Bloodnok said above is true as a principle for “wind power”. If it wasn’t for subsidies, tax breaks, and anticipated ETS schemes, there would be no basis for most of the world’s wind generation schemes. And if it is not cost competitive, the chances are that the construction and maintenance of wind turbines actually uses more resources and emits more carbon than they save.
This is especially the case when the coal or gas fired generation that is required as a backup, is taken into account.
I very much doubt that other methods of generating electricity have an upfront construction cost of $6,000 per household let alone $25,000 per household.
Also, the “70,000 homes” is certainly optimistic; it will refer to “average” load or “base” load, not “peak”. Then there is industrial and business and government requirements to consider.
Those coal fired stations will need to be kicked in frequently; a generation and transmission system nightmare. Coal fired stations can not be “kicked in”; they either need hours to start, or need to be “idled”, producing CO2 while not generating electricity. Gas turbines can be fired up quickly, but cost heaps to run.
If it makes sense to build turbines at some locations, fine. But it is a utopian dream to think that wind turbines are ever going to substitute for any more than a tiny percentage of the total generation required.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Read Ian Wishart’s latest book “Air Con”.
Everybody wake up.
As Wishart says, we have 6 months. Once the politicians have signed our sovereignty away under global treaties it may be too late. Global carbon penalties will end your lifestyle as you know it. You’d better work out if the pretexts on which you are being sucked into this, actually stack up.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I would pay good money to watch Ian Wishart and Nicky Hagar duke it out for 8 rounds.
Both are so inexorably tied to extreme polemics against people/ideologies they don’t like, that I would be amazed if anyone but the already-converted ever read anything by either.
Free advice:
I know political blogs are different than real life. If you want anyone in the real world to listen to you, do not begin with “(Ian Wishart/Nicky Hagar) said…”
April 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Ratbiter
People use to listen when you started something with; Al Gore said….
Convincing people that they are so important and have complete control of the environment was easy for a while, now the “science is settled” message needs to be proven. This is where it all turns to custard. People were so worried about an ice age in the 70′s there were plans to spread black soot on the ice caps in an attempt to melt them….
Now we know so much more about the science …. don’t we… it’s not some popularist pendulum is it… is it….
April 30th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I read a report from the Uk that basically said that the cost of keeping backup fossil-fuel plants in idle-mode for when the wind wasn’t strong enough made wind power the most expensive of the main types of electricity generation by about twice that of all the others – which were pretty much of a muchness (fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear) when it came to cost/unit of energy produced.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
A lot has changed in 10 years.
10 years ago I investigated putting a small turbine on some rural/residential land I own in Wellington. I called the council and got in touch with the resource consent people. Basically I was told it would need to be notified yada yada yada – thousands of dollars and no certainty…
I called them a few months back and now the same site only needs a building permit.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Global warming campaigner Bill McKibben, regarded as a climate change guru by Al Gore, has pulled out of a TV debate on global warming with Ian Wishart” (more here).
And Al Gore refuses all offers from Lord Monckton for a debate.
One wonders why?
April 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I wish to go head to head with the head of the UK Royal Society on the notion that the law of the conservation of energy can be overcome, but he won’t agree! I wrote a book!
April 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
stephen
If the quality of your comments here is any indication of the quality of your book then it’s no surprise that you are not being taken seriously.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
NZ can have the ideal mix for power generation
Geothermal for base load
(tidal pwer from the Cook Strait would also make a good baseload generator)
Wind & Hydro for the majority of demand
Gas for peaks
Hydro matches wind nicely because a hydro station can start producing within seconds if the wind drops.
The main problem is too many consumers in Auckland and not enough in the South Is. This why the transmission grid needs to be upgraded, to move the power around.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I’ll have you know burt that my book is the blockbuster to end all blockbusters.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
stephen
That’s lovely dear, I’m pleased for you. xxx
April 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
” slightlyrighty
And it has pissed of a few nimby’s over Makara way, which is a side benefit!”
Nice to see that they cleared the roads of protest for Chairman Key also.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
More fucking over people in rural areas to keep the urban sick lmae and lazy happy.
Oh yay.
I recall the same sort of thing killed to Roman Empire quite well.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Don’t forget geothermal which can also provide a great baseload boost – absolutely consistent power, totally renewable. Mainly based in central north island close to main trunk transpower lines so can be sent north or south depending on where wind is blowing or water available.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Wow Trev, I never thought I’d say this, but good idea. Is it cost efficient to build too?
If only you had spent more time on ideas like that, and less on smacking people around, you might still be minister of something… there is some lessons there, methinks.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Baron – did quite a lot of work on it both as energy and soe minister and unless Smith’s RMA changes get in the road i think we will have about 20% of baseload over about the next 10 – 15 years. Very cost efficient and in a number of cases jointly owned with land owning iwi. Lots of wins. Contact and esp MRP do it really well.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Trevor
As a former Energy Minister you should know better. Geothermal is not totally renewable. If it were there would be no reason to shut down Wairakei (which is happening). Fact is, geothermal reservoirs, like oil ones, can and do deplete. Not all perhaps but the harder you run them the shorter the life.
Despite all the talk about geothermal it is still less than 10% of total generation
More wind means more peaking generation and that is expensive, because the cost of a plant isn’t that much less than a baseload one yet you only get paid for what you generate, which is very limited times for peakers. The logic therefore is that to earn a return and justify construction, prices will have to rise significantly to incentivise peaking plant. Will wind generators wear the cost or consumers….?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Trevor Mallard
I don’t know the current state of affairs regarding geothermal but I do know that a few years back there were concerns about people taking too much out and that causing issues. Is this still the case or was that just some command and control socialist thing designed to get taxes from people using “free energy”.
I recall a Marlborough district council house (in Taupo) I use to stay in from time to time had a bore to heat an indoor swimming pool. The quality/quantity of the bore was decreasing apparently due to so many people hooking into the bountiful energy supply just below the surface in that area.
The other issues of course are the RMA and the local Iwi. Is geothermal energy like the sky/lake beds etc in that it is “owned” by people based on race or is it a natural resource of NZ as a whole?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
What the hell was the Marlborough District Council doing owning a house in Taupo?
Jesus, and people wonder why Local Government needs reformed…
April 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Geothermal energy has a long way to go before it is sustainable. A lot of research is being done into “hot rock” generation in Australia – basically involves injecting water into the ground in one bore and getting it out again at another one up dip. The theory goes that the water gets super heated and creates steam when on the surface.
New Zealand’s geothermal system already has superheated water in it. Some of that water is involved in ground stability – Ohaaki power station had to be scaled back to 96MW from the initial 108MW because the ground around the borefield was subsiding and threatened to cause the Waikato River to encroach on local farmland and a marae. This was partially solved through reinjection of cold water, however the new cold fluid also causes a decrease in the productivity of the field.
Yes, the current Wairakei station is going to be shut down. It was originally designed to be 2 stations, Wairakei A and B, however only ‘A’ was ever completed (the foundations for ‘B’ were poured right next door to ‘A’). A new station is going to be built at the other end of the borefield and will gradually take over from the old one over the next decade.
There are significant issues involved with geothermal generation, particularly around populated areas. Nobody wants their back yard to end up like Craters of the Moon, and it is well known that those craters were formed around the time that Wairakei started generation. It is that sort of concern that has caused the Tauhara field near Taupo to be undeveloped (I believe there may be a scheme starting there soon).
Another issue is the presence of contaminants including heavy metals in the borefield water. In the 1950s this water was put straight into the Waikato River at Wairakei, and continued for many decades. I cannot comment on whether this is still the case, although I imagine it was stopped as part of the resource consent process.
In short, the central North Island cannot provide a “green” geothermal base load for the whole country. The only way to provide a “green” base load is through hydro generation or perhaps by building a nuclear powered plant near or in the biggest population area. Both options are quite unpalatable by different sectors of society – the Mokhinui River project and Project Aqua are examples that spring to mind. I also don’t see anyone agreeing to new dams on any of the major rivers. The Wanganui is too sacred, the Rangitikei and Rangitaikei are possibilities but I don’t see it happening… Maybe in the South Island, but then there’s the transmission issue.
There is no easy answer, apart from big generation in Auckland.
Sorry about the long post.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
At the risk of negative karma, Mallard did make progress in expanding power generation options for the country. This has probably not been fully realised by the media or public.
On the issue of wind-power, it’s important to realise that NZ is an oceanic island, so what is relevant for continental systems (Europe, North America) don’t hold here. Without the large land masses to absorb and counter oceanic wind flows, we have ended up with a predictable and steady ‘trade-wind’ across the Tasman. The ecological peculiarity is that we have few flying birds to worry about.
This means that wind-power is actually a useful adjunct to our power generation capacity. We don’t have to worry about kiwis getting chopped up. And the wind supply is much steadier and predictable. I don’t believe that any advocate of wind-farms see these as a utopian solution to power generatuion, but basically, anything helps (especially if it can contain somne of the very high spot-market power spikes manufacturers have to suffer).
The puzzle is why- despite the prolific number of sites that have value as wind farms- and the reduced conservation risk- that we have such an incredibly under-developed wind-farm capacity. Part of the answer to this puzzle is the NIMBY attitude of some, and the scope the RMA objection process affords to make these wind-farm projects uneconomic.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Chthoniid
There is another reason, that being that the access roads that need to be built (5m wide scars on the landscape) seldom get past the RMA. In some ways I’m really glad this is the case, carving 5m wide tracks through bush is something that we should try and resist, but that raises the question about use of existing land that is already deforested.
Much deforested land (farm land) would be suitable but typically it’s in private hands so it requires the land owners to have an appetite for wind generation on their land. Add to this the barriers that exists for small generators in terms of economy of scale and it’s really not a mystery that we don’t have as much as we could.
The NIMBY angle is another story, give them a few blackouts and a few massive winter power bills and they might change their mind. Given the ever increasing demand for electricity and the generally low investment in generation infrastructure in this country it’s currently only a matter of time before we have severe shortages during peak use periods (eg a cold and dry winter).
I mentioned earlier that I have looked at slapping a small turbine on a site myself, the cost vs benefits make it about a 5-10 year pay back period. Realistically this is good economics but the problem is that small scale generation equipment hasn’t got the same length of service that a more industrial strength generation tower has. The way I read the numbers I might break even at about ythe same time as I need to replace the kit – this makes the exercise less attractive. But on the swingside of that, watching the power meter in the house going backward would be a mighty satisfying thing.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Burt –
Assuming you are mechanically minded, you could probably stretch out the life of the kit so it will well and truly pay for itself. A bit like the difference between a large organisation getting rid of its cars after 3-5 years and a small businessman or tradie holding onto his ute for 10-15 years – he is prepared and inclined to stretch the life out of his machine.
I have heard of some Southern Cross windmills (pumping aquifer water, not generating electricity) in Queensland lasting in excess of 50 years, even putting up with the rigours of the outback and bugger all maintenance. I guess product choice is pretty crucial – you don’t want it packing up on you.
Good luck with your project!
April 30th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
The PM was up there for the opening and there’s a video of that visit on YouTube that shows a lot of the scenery – not pro shots by ANY means, but still interesting, especially if you haven’t been up there yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx80SfOtdGQ&feature=channel_page
April 30th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
burt- the sites I’m familiar with (Te Waka) and in the Manawatu are bereft of native forests. Wind blasted slopes that have been subsequently farmed over are pretty denuded of native vegetation.
Part of the balancing problem is that under the RMA and any district plans, you have to show that the economic gain of a wind farm surpasses any ecological impacts (and it’s amazing how many of these farmed-over wind-swept slopes suddenly become sites of high conservation value) and any heritage values and any Maori values (spiritual or otherwise) and any cultural values. That’s a tough case to make and I’m afraid, the Environment Court is not populated by the most economically literate participants.
Good to hear though that you are exploring the options. You never know how things last if they’re looked after properly. I’ve used cameras past the ‘shutter life-time’ (largely because manufacturers are conservative with their estimates). And who knows what power prices will do over the same period
April 30th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Sir William Birch is quoted in today’s Waikato Times talking about geothermal power generation. He was advocating the proposed wind farm on the coast, south of Port Waikato be stopped. Now, that is out the back of beyond.
Birch, like Mallard, spoke about geothermal being the new answer.
Birch agree with Mallard? What is the world coming to?
May 1st, 2009 at 5:36 am
What New Zealand needs is a nuclear reactor. John Key should get on the phone to Vladimir Putin and arrange to get a Chernobyl style RMK-1000 reactor built in New Zealand, most likely located in Mangere or somewhere else in South Auckland because the land is so cheap. I’m sure he could negotiate a cheap deal with Atomstroyexport. Even more money could be saved by not building any containment structures.
Added bonus is if ever New Zealand needs to build its own Nuclear Weapons it will have the material to do so
May 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
We were up there covering the story, Siemens was apparently extremely impressed with the site, it’s true(as someone pointed out here) that the site is one of the few that is actually economically viable because of the quality of the wind (twice that of what would be considered a high quality wind site in Europe apparently):
VIDEO John Key switches it on(you can see the conditions at the site): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfIgkGbcShI&feature=channel_page
VIDEO The bus ride through the site which is closed to the public, 33km of roads constructed across the area which is very hilly even for wellington, all the turbines are placed on the crests of the hills: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5piaMw8pqeM&feature=channel_page
May 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am
Or New Zealand could use a more modern reactor, designed since the 1980s and designed to be physically impossible to melt down. There are safe reactors that could be used. It is not a stupid idea.
Just remember that Auckland Hospital dumps more radioactive waste in one day than the entire US fleet does in one year. A coal fired plant releases more uranium in a year than a nuclear one does in its lifetime.