Energy strategy blues
So the Government has released its draft energy strategy. And I see that Contact are happily predicting that it will have no effect on their decision to build the Otahuhu C gas fired station. It strikes me that the energy strategy is not going to be particularly effective at producing renewable electricity generation if it has no effect on building fossil fuel generation.
So what are the characteristics of this draft strategy:
1. The energy strategy is not a strategy yet - all the decisions have yet to be made. There are few concrete actions proposed, and a lot of “consider” and “support”.
This is especially true of transport where a lot of policy initiatives are under consideration but there is no analysis of them or what they would achieve. Of the 12 “action” points on page 30, two of the action points are consultations, five action points are actually just things to “consider”, two action points are things to investigate, and one action point is to do some monitoring. One action point is to “increase support” for public transport but no numbers and the final one is to increase the size of our oil reserve, which is fine but does nothing for sustainability.
2. It sets out the principle that it is “preferable” that all new electricity generation should from now on come from renewable resources and there is a very interesting graph on page 25 which shows that large amounts of wind, geothermal and hydro generation are cheaper than gas or coal even without a carbon price. This shows we have the resources to achieve a renewable electricity system - however there are no mechanisms to ensure it happens. For that we have to turn to the two climate change papers released at the same time.
3. The climate change papers are largely a repeat of what was done around 1994 when there was a major public consultation exercise on the relative merits of carbon charge and emissions trading. Nothing came of that - will anything come of this?
4. After the round of public consultation there will be ANOTHER consultation document produced well into next year. Will there be any policy by the start of the Kyoto period?
December 12th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I have not read the strategy but is there anything about streamlining the Resource Management Act?
Pretty much all renewable energy such as hydro and wind must be built on a large scale- this requires lots of land, in which case it is essential that you can ride roughshod over community views and force sales under eminent domain.
The RMA has led to the BANANA effect- build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone, and is definitely in need of revision for large scale projects.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
The Resource Management Act has not been a stumbling block in the work I have been involved in as a wind engineer for Mighty River Power.
Procurement of land is also not a problem, as most landowners are more than keen to accomodate for wind turbines on their property in exchange for royalties from the energy that is generated. Forced sales of land would be an extreme violation of property rights.
Noise and visual effects have not stopped a project from going ahead, but might mean that a few turbines are sacrificed. In the three cases that have gone to the Environment Court, it has been ruled that the adverse noise and visual effects are more than offset by the positive aspects of wind generation for both the local community and the national interest.
In fact, the major obstacles to the economic generation of renewable energy, particularly wind, is transmission constraints on the electricity grid, rather than public opposition.
I very much believe that targe scale projects should not be treated any differently from small scale projects. They are all commercial ventures at the end of the day.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:13 am
It’s all just blah-blah-blah to me (although that was excellent noticing on all the weasel words there Russel hehehe)
I hate to sound like a cynic here, but I just do not see any energy or climate change policies working in this country until the politicians stop pissing about trying to compete for popularity points with each other and construct something that is completely non-partisan.
We need long-term solutions in place that are agreed by all parties and the scientific community - policies that will not be abandoned or compromised at the whim of whatever party happens to be in power over the next 30 years, for the sake of scoring a few extra votes.
I challenge the Green to table this in parliament - that the people demand a transparent non-partisan policy on these issues.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:31 am
“…until the politicians stop pissing about trying to compete for popularity points with each other…”
I’d sooner expect sharks to turn vegetarian and pigs to roast themselves and stroll up the garden path to rest on my kitchen table.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Yep we have been pushing for cross party agreement on climate policy. We put this forward in March with the Turn Down the Heat proposal from memory and have repeated it since. Even Peter Dunne has joined the call (who had an involvement in sinking the carbon pollution charge)! It’s possible that there might be some progress on it next year. It doesn’t even need to cover all aspects of CC policy. We actually seem to have a cross party agreement that there must be a price on carbon in the electricity generation sector which is significant progress. Now we just need to find agreement on how that can be acheived!
December 13th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
The climate change papers are largely a repeat of what was done around 1994 when there was a major public consultation exercise on the relative merits of carbon charge and emissions trading.
To be picky, it was 1999, not 1994, and the argument was over which to adopt as a transitional measure from 2002 in the lead-up to a full emissions trading regime during CP1. The plan was then put on hold due to disagreement between various government ministries over the preferred option, and effectively kneecapped by Simon Upton’s cabinet colleagues.
What it does tell us is that Labour has effectively wasted its whole term of government on this front. It had a clear majority to implement measures until 2005, but dragged its feet and delayed, and so we’re back where we were in 1999 (or possibly earlier, given the breadth of options under consideration). You also have to wonder what has happened at MfE - have they lost all institutional memory of these prior policy debates, so that they need to keep endlessly circling the same policy issues again and again? Couldn’t they just pull the past stuff off the shelf and hand it to the Minister and say “here’s what we did ten years ago”?
December 13th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
First Peter Dunne works with the Greens to help with the J’ville train, and now this? What’s happened to him?? Perhaps Mike should write about the Greening of the Dunne in shoppingfix.blogspot.com
Hopefully the government’s words aren’t just greenwash… they’re beginning to talk the talk but when you follow the money it usually leads to more roads.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
UK_Kiwi: there’s some mention of a “consolidated process” for renewable energy consents, though its unclear what exactly this entails (I get the impression it may involve them all going into a pool to be decided not by local authorities, but by central government - but I could be wrong). There’s also talk of a National Policy Statement to provide further guidance to local authorities - but they’ve been talking about this since 1994 at least (and possibly earlier), and never done it (primarily due to the requirement that the regulations proposed in NPS’s be cost-effective or some such problem - which is not the sort of requirement you expect in environmental law).
In practice, wind farms have not had trouble gaining resource consent. The early ones whizzed through the process with broad public support; later ones faced opposition from feral NIMBYs concerned about their property values, went to the environment court, and were subsequently confirmed. There was an interesting paper in the New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law which studied the issue.
The two most likely windfarms to not be consented are Meridian’s enormous Central Otago plan (which has significant landscape effects), and Mighty River’s Turitea farm, which is in a reserve. I don’t think anywhere else will have a problem at all, though they will take time.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
There are however, RMA and land issues with actually improving the transmission lines. This is perhaps, the issue that UK_Kiwi is alluding to?
That we need to do it is clear enough… and that we have a hell of a time giving ourselves permission to do it is equally clear. Some things “have” to be done or we’re p!ss!ng upwind.
The alternative is local conversion to hydrogen or better yet, methane, and piping the potential energy from here to there. The conversion inefficiencies and losses would IMHO, exceed the transmission line losses by a factor of at least 3… (note, this IS a swag, not seriously researched).
respectfully
BJ
December 14th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Wind farms are like high voltage transmission lines - visual pollution.
To say they breeze through the RMA process is bollocks I/S. The huge turbines destined for the west coat at Waiuku were denied permits simply because of size and noise.
The proper place for them is out at sea. Always steady winds. Just like the Norwegians who have put up a 300 unit monster wind farm over the horizon. No visual pollution, no noise problems. And great for recreation fishermen!
Why do wind turbines have to be white. Should they not be green or blue and at least try and blend in with the background?
Our lack of foresight in planning where transmission lines for electricity will go shows up with the monsters planned to be marched across the Wakato.
The visual pollution could have simply be avoided if during the construction of the Waikato Express Way from Bombay to Cambridge the planners had allowed for the digging of a 5 metre trench under the road while in construction, dropping in those huge concrete drain pipes to form a tunnel and putting the high tension lines underground. Would not need RMA consent as the exavations are already there for the road, the cost would be a fraction of the tall high tension towers planned, long term maintenance would have been a breeze, etc.
But most importantly the visual pollutiion would have been zero.
Visual pollution rides on the back of the 100% Pure Image, New Zealand is projecting as discussed in a previous thread.
Long term electricity needs will come not from major projects but micro generating plants. Every time I look at the Waikato and see the energy flowing downstream I see a turbine on the river bed generating power for the local community. No pollution, no power companies, no line companies, just the local community getting cheap and independent electric power.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Gerrit - the wind farm at Awhitu received approval. The only reason it has not been built yet is because higher turbine prices have made the site uneconomic. I’m not sure why you think it was denied “permits” …
Offshore wind farms are a good option, but they do have higher construction and maintenance costs, as well as more significant ecological impacts. It’s something people are looking into.
The reason wind turbines are white is because for turbines on a ridgeline white is least noticeable against a cloudy backdrop. Painting them a different colour would actually tend to increase their visual impact.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Stu,
Locals at Awhitu have a different picture of why they wont be built. Maybe build the turbines but the cables to connect to the grid need to go to the Glenbrook substation (NZ Steel Site?) That is another matter. Would need to cross private land plus cross the Manukau Harbour and need ARC permission. Unless you went to long way around and cable out to sea and through to the Manukau Heads and Harbour to the Otahuhu substation.
Or the turbines dont feed the National Grid and the electricity is only used locally through a local community owned lines company (wouldnt that be one in the eye for the electricity retailers!). ‘
Offshore ecological impacts that we dont have on land. Such as?
Maintenance is not a big issue if built in composites and highgrade steels, concrete underwater towers, etc. Cabling technology underwater is as old as the cables under Cook Straight.
Paint then light grey surely. White clouds? Never seen one yet pure white like the turbines. A light blue would be better still. Visibility for low flying helicopters and planes (weed spray - topdressing) is a problem so the blades should be fitted with red lights like every other major tall structure. Are wind turbines exempt from this rulling?
December 14th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Gerrir: the first Manawatu windfarms (Tararua, Te Apiti, Tararua II) breezed through. The later ones - notably Te Rere Hau - and those in Makara and Hawkes Bay were granted consent, and appealed to the Environment Court. Te Rere Hau was settled (after agreeing to, among other things, paint its turbines low-visibility grey; they’re quite difficult to see); Hawkes Bay was granted, and we’re still waiting on West Wind (but I thik the odds are good). Awhitu is the exception - it was refused initial consent, appealed by Genesis, and granted by the EC due to the renewable energy clause, which set a very strong precedent that local concerns would have to be very significant in order to kill a project. As Stu points out, it has now been put on hold due to the exchange rate and rising turbine prices (but then, Genesis is rather half-hearted about wind anyway).
Offshore wind farms are a good option, but no-one in NZ is looking at them yet because we have plenty of good sites on land (the driver in Europe is a shortage of land and a shortage of wind; we have neither). But I’m sure we’ll see them eventually.
And as for visual pollution, YMMV. Many people in Palmerston North are quite fond of seeing their turbines spinning in the breeze. But if grey paint is what is needed to get these things through, then I doubt it will be a problem.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
YMMV?
December 14th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I am confused Gerrit. You say that the Awhitu wind farm has been denied permission, but then only talk about reasons why “locals” think that they should not be built.
Regardless of the practicalities of the project, the fact is that from a consenting perspective, the construction of the wind farm could start legally tomorrow.
I am a local and I can think of plenty of reasons why the Awhitu wind farm should and could be built, but this is not the place to discuss such an isolated case. The issue is also not about painting turbines grey or the resource management process.
The issue is about the price that we place on carbon emissions in light of the risks posed by climate change. From the point of view of economic efficiency, I am concerned about the narrow minded focus on cutting carbon emissions from the electricity sector, as opposed to other areas of the economy.
Rather than focussing solely on the electricity sector, it would be better to impose a carbon tax across the whole economy that encourages reductions in emissions from not only electricity generation, but also agriculture and transport.
This is the main reason why I despair over the current government … their tendency to back centralised solutions to problems, rather than decentralised, local, and market orientated responses.
Does the government realise that its incessant subsidies for land transport have created travel patterns that see NZ’ers driving 5 times the OECD average and subsequently driven NZ’s highly efficient coastal shipping and rail transport systems into the ground?
The answer is not to develop an energy strategy that says “build renewables.” The solution is to create economic incentives that encourage reductions in carbon emissions. My message to the Labour government is to stop subsidising bad habits before you talk about creating new habits.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Stu Donovan: well said!
December 14th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
your mileage may vary
google is your friend
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=YMMV
December 14th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Totally agree Stu. Hence an early comment on another post regarding improving the rail network. If you are going to get people onto trains, spend the money to get a service that is actually a service. The current Auckland rail net work is a joke. Rubbishy stations, incorrect scheduling information, insecure car parks to park and ride, etc, etc,. Plus carbon positive because it is not electified.
If we want an efficient electric passenger rail link Whangarei and Invercargill and all points in-between then the government needs to provide the rail network that allows an operator to provide fast and convenient rail service that people will get out of cars and more importanly aeroplanes for.
It needs to be built before the people will change. That means ecologically we will have to dig up the countryside to built more electric power stations, install ugly overhead wires, dig cuttings and fill hollows to modernise rail alignments with flatter curves, dig a lot more tunnels, have bigger ferries that take passenger trains, etc.
To make it commercially viable you need to get the travelling time from Auckland to Wellington down to 6 hours. Include sleeper and buffet cars, business centres connected to the internet, etc.
Is the willpower there in this or subsequent governments to do this? I hope so but………
It is one thing to have these Carbon neutral plans but when will we fire up the carbon positive bulldozers to make this happen.
You forgot to answer my query regarding the why off shore located windfarms have a greater ecological impact then land based ones.
I/S and you brush aside the visual damage done to the environment by wind farms.
Maybe I’m the only person who thinks they are butt ugly and a blot on the landscape, but I dont think so.
As you know the Awhitu turbines would be visible above the ridge line from miles away. That is what the majority of locals objected to. As you will well know living there.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Apologies for not answring your question. The ecological damage from off-shore wind farms is likely to be higher because of the higher demands of constructing wind turbine foundations in a marine environment.
Containing the concrete and base coarse material would be extremely difficult given NZ’s strong ocean currents, thus contaminating the surrounding water. Mind you - these challenges are definitely not insurmountable and may become economically feasible as wind technology improves.
I think idiot/savant’s earlier comment regarding the number of good sites on land hold true, which will mean that we will not see offshore wind farms in NZ within the next decade.
I am not “brushing aside” the visual damage of wind farms. I appreciate that the naturalness of the landscape is the major determinant of its visual attractiveness. IMHO, however, the visual impact is adequately dealt with through existing RM processes.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Offshore wind farms have the potential to cause more ecological damage because of the difficulties posed by building giant concrete foundations in NZ’s challenging marine environment. However, as wind technology improves, the additional cost of containing these construction effects may be overcome (as suggested by Idiot/Savant in an earlier post).
I am not brushing aside the visual impact of turbines. I do think, however, that this issue is adequately dealt with through existing resource management processes. You are entitled to think they are butt ugly, and it is only through participatory legislation like the RMA that your opinion can actively contribute to debates on the merits (or otherwise) of wind farms.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
And with regards to trains - I completely agree that we need to fire up the bulldozers to straighten out the track (where practical), before electrifying.
I’m actually investigating starting up a commercial regional rail service in the upper half of the North Island, connecting Auckland, Hamilton, Rotorua, and Tauranga. New diesels are really efficient so shifting people from cars and buses to trains would still be reducing carbon emissions. With new locomotives the travel times would already be competitive.
All I need is $10 million initial capital. Any offers? C’mon, afterall it is Xmas.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:59 am
Personally I LIKE the look of the wind generators. Perhaps this is coloured by my perception of the future, or perhaps it has something to do with my problems matching socks
More practical comment… I think you may be misunderestimating the maintenance problems in the marine environment here. Structures made by humans are NOT easily maintained in the ancient interface… moreover, you have to build high to catch a good clean wind and to get the blades out of the erosive and corrosive effects of salt spray. If one were to take into account the maintenance and the running cost of a marine wind generator vs one on land I would reckon them at nearly twice the cost of one built on a hill nearby. Maybe not 2x the energy costs, but higher overheads.
Agree with straightening rail… work needed for full electrification… all that goes with it.
In the meantime, rather than diesel, an adaptation of an older technology perhaps. Steam fired by wood pellets? This would be carbon neutral and capable of travelling the lines where there is not yet electrification. Possibly simply using a steam turbo-gen set to provide power to the electric cars? Of course it has never been done before….
respectfully
BJ
December 15th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Stu,
Am interested, got a prospectus?
The concrete construction technology exists and structures (for off shore drilling paltform - ironically) made from concrete is in wide use already. In such deep water environments as the sub artic near New Foundland, etc. Very impressive the technology and design that makes concrete the ideal building material for deep water structures.
Lets take it one step further and make the underwater structures like an artificial reef. Attracting all manner of sea life into a local eco system while we generate electricity from wind from the turbines on the reef!
The fisherman in me says; choice snapper (or if futher south blue cod), while other might say; choice a new marine reserve!
December 15th, 2006 at 7:32 am
I have not developed a prospectus yet, but have conducted some preliminary financial analysis.
With one train you could get in two trips between Auckland and Hamilton per week day. The train is then on the evenings and weekends to run services to either Rotorua, Tauranga, or possibly Wellington.
Are you in Auckland? Would be happy to meet up and talk about it. I’m in Newmarket …
December 15th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Yeh BJ, I find the look of those big windmills churning away gracefully on the hilltop quite mesmerising myself, although I would certainly object if they were noisy. I do not like the idea of them being offshore tho, but that is purely for subjective reasons, so I am glad you were able to provide some objective ones for me there.
I am quite fascinated by the idea of tidal energy generation, because the power of the ocean tides is so vast. I would like to learn more about this and see some research that assesses their environmental impact to our underwater ecosystem.
Noticed an article on Energy Blog the other day about a proposal to building a tidal power project in the Kaipara harbour, but I can’t recall reading anything about it in our local news media:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/12/large_tidal_pow.html
Be interested to hear peoples opinions on this one. And also any web sites or resources you have to share about tidal power so I can study up some more?
Very informative thread, cheers peeps.
December 15th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
As most of the wind turbines are near the coast to get prevailing onshore wind the salt spray environment on land is no better then at sea. With no part of New Zealand more then 100k from the ocean the salt spray is everywhere.
We live 2k from the ocean and get sea spray all the time. Making roof collecting drinking water impossible!
Carbon composites and modern concrete do not corrode like steel. Stainless driving gears to fully protected turbines is the goer. If the Norwegian can do it viably in the North Sea (an environment as harsh as we get in New Zealand) surely we can except that the technology is available.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33148/story.htm
for a link to a Texan one. The Irish are building one as well.
Van I see the tidal power staions being located in the Kaipara Harbour entrance like you plus the Manukau and all other major harbours like Kawhia. Other places are in the Cook Stait. My favourite for Auckland is for a tunnel to join the Waitmate and Manukau Harbours. Some mighty tidal flows through there.
Van have a look at this web site
http://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/tidal.htm
They envisage wind turbine like structures actually underwater to catch the tidal flow. Interesting.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
The salt spray at the surface is no better, but you build generators as high as you can practically put them. The wind is stronger and more constant up there, which is why they build the masts of ships as high as they possibly can. The heaviest drops of water and the largest bits of whatever else, fall out as you go higher. This is something that I know damned well from having served on a gasoline tanker (little more than a barge with a permanently attached tug) and a birdfarm. Washing stuff in salt water, drying it out and washing it again is deadly.
Second issue is whether you want to build something that expensive. The undersea cable isn’t cheap either. When I added my comment I was not saying “can’t” I was saying expensive and possibly uneconomical for a longer time than the land based generators have been. Stainless steel gears? Sigh… wish I had some. Did you notice what happened to the price of nickel? … Like I said it isn’t that it can’t work, just that it will cost more, both in terms of ongoing maintenance, in terms of installation, and in terms of energy use for both of those processes.
As for tidal, I like it but have one worry, which is the possibility of turning some whale or larger fish into sushi. Maintenance there is also a problem but the effective energy density is higher due to the denser medium and there is not the additional environmental hazard of UV and repeated salt washing. There’s enough O2 in the water to allow corrosion to proceed, but it’s more manageable once you are below the surface. Don’t have to build so strong either, as storm swells and gale force winds don’t reach that far down.
I’ve discussed the idea of a tunnel in Auckland. I don’t know what the tides in those two harbours do. The tides have to be out of phase and generate a decent head for tidal power to be noticeably useful, and you have to put a huge volume of water through if the head is small. The nice thing about the strait is that it provides the volume easily and the effect of the two islands is to funnel a hell of a current through the stait.
Like I said though, we’d want to do something to discourage the larger sea critters. They might damage the blades.
respectfully
BJ
December 15th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
bjchip Says: As for tidal, I like it but have one worry, which is the possibility of turning some whale or larger fish into sushi.
That is my primary worry too BJ. I found some useful info from links off the page Gerrit posted before (thanks G) but still haven’t found anything regarding environmental impact, especially with regard to sea critters.
Being a hardcore supporter of animal welfare rights (wowzer BB, we actually have something in common LOL) I would hate to find that this kind of technology has the potential to destroy as many sea creatures as drift nets or bottom trawling.
Anyhoo, I’ll keep hunting for more info and share here if I happen to find anything.
Cheers,
Zana
December 16th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Stu,
Isn’t there aready a daily service from Hamilton to Auckland? See a full railcar every morning, presuming it comes from Hamilton. Local trains now run out to Pukekohe so must be from points South.
Problem you have is not just running the trains, its is a lack of infastructure to support the passengers when they get on and off. Just go down to the Newmarket station and see what I mean. No facilities at all.
Been thinking more about trains and come to the conclusion heavy fior the main trunk but light (trams) for local and suburb operations.
Big fan of the Melbourne tram, train and bus services. Frequent, clean, fast with a simple fare system. First line I would put in would run from the Airport to Puhinui Rail Station and onto Manukau then to Botany and Howick. Make Puhinui the rail hub for the South Auckland area. Giving Eastern residents a clear public transport exit North and South.
For the Shore I would stick with constructing ABahn bus lanes like those in Adelaide. Excellent set up. Busses cruising at 120K in perfect safety. Bus only tunnel under the harbour and into Britomart.
BJ
Is burning wood carbon neutral? If so we could bring in all the trees from Australia to burn in the Marsden B Station (they are burning them anyway so why not cut them down and ship here - do both Australia and New Zealand a public service - smoke from the Australian bush fires is drifting across the Tasman already.).
December 17th, 2006 at 10:40 am
I note that Paris has just started running a tram service. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6186161.stm
December 18th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Bit late but just heard the Poms are going to build a massive 340 turbine wind farm to supply enough electricity for 33% of London. Area the wind farm will cover is 200 sq kilometers. Guess where?
20 k offshore in the middle of the Thames Estuary.
That is enough power for nearly 3 million people (enough to supply the total North Island needs)
To get the wind farm scale big enough you need to go offshore. On shore the farms are just to small.
Smaller one 7k offshore planned for later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/6188133.stm