Opposition voiced to Rodney power station
A large number of submissions to a Rodney power station proposal are expected by the time submissions close at 4pm on Friday.

Genesis Energy is seeking a private plan change for a site on State Highway 16 about three kilometres south of Kaukapakapa to allow a 480 megawatt gas-fired station proposal to proceed.

The plan change request is before the Rodney District Council, while 15 resource consent applications are being considered by the Auckland Regional Council.

A number of people attended a submission writing workshop in Kaukapakapa on
Saturday.

“We had the hall booked for two hours,” says Kaukapakapa Residents and Ratepayers Association committee member Pip McAlwee. “But people were still writing furiously an hour after we were supposed to leave.”

Greenpeace representatives attended to show their support and help with questions.

“We are aware that many Rodney residents are extremely concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed gas-fired power station,” says Greenpeace climate campaigner Simon Boxer.

“Greenpeace supports the vital campaign work local residents are undertaking to oppose this climate polluting plant,” he says.

“The Rodney power station is a real test of the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change.”

Six of the resource consents applied for directly affect the Kaukapakapa River, an inland water protection zone area, says Mrs McAlwee.

Of particular concern to residents is Genesis Energy’s proposal to take 2400 cubic metres of river water, and discharge 1900 cubic metres of power plant wastewater back into the river daily.

Locals opposing the proposal have had messages of support from individuals and environmental groups throughout New Zealand.

“Many were amazed when told that the power station was still going ahead” says Mrs McAlwee.

“The government imposed a 10-year moratorium on new baseload thermal plants in October, and advised state-owned generators in a letter that the government ‘doesn’t expect new thermal capacity to be either economic or necessary to ensure security of supply’.”

Genesis Energy has retained the original baseload configuration for the thermal plant. It maintains the power station is essential for security of the power supply north of Auckland.

While reinjection may not be required by law, it is almost essential to get through the RMA. (The exception might be sites where the hot water escapes into the countryside anyway.)

Trevor.

no response yet from don elder, solid energy or any industry front they maintain -

Carbon capture and storage a “scam”
Monday, 12 May 2008, 1:10 pm
Press Release: Greenpeace New Zealand

Carbon capture and storage a “scam” says new report

Auckland, 12 May 2008 – Big business and policy-makers must not succumb to the elusive promise of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to solve the climate crisis, says Greenpeace in a major new report (1).

‘False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate’ relies on independent, peer-reviewed scientific sources and details why CCS is a dangerous distraction in the fight against climate change. It reveals that the technology is unproven, risky, and expensive, and will be developed to the detriment of sustainable solutions.
SEARCH NZ JOBS
Search Businesses FindA
Check Your SALARY Level
Click Here

“Relying on CCS to tackle carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal is about as smart as wilfully contracting a disease in the hope that medical science may one day provide a cure,” said Greenpeace New Zealand Climate Campaigner Susannah Bailey.

“The unproven technology for capturing carbon dioxide then dumping it underground remains very much on the drawing board, yet is being promoted by big polluters such as Solid Energy as a way for them to proceed with coal expansion plans (2). Carbon capture and storage is the ultimate coal industry ‘greenwash’ tool.

“The priority should instead be investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency.” Fraught with uncertainties over practicality and cost, CCS technology is not expected to be commercially available before 2030. By then it will be too late for it to play a role in combating climate change. Climate experts agree that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 and be at least halved by 2050.

“It is insanity verging on criminal negligence to pass over clean energy and pin hopes on an unproven technology instead,” said the report’s author, Emily Rochon, Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace International. “Businesses need to reduce their emissions not search for excuses for continuing polluting.

“Enthusiasm for CCS is reaching fever pitch among coal and oil advocates who have lost the battle over whether climate change is a problem. Unable to look beyond the carbon economy, they are desperate to project CCS as the way to continue with ‘pollution-as-usual’,” said Ms Rochen.

“Just as there is no guaranteed safe way to bury nuclear waste, there is no guaranteed safe way to bury carbon. No matter how much research goes into CCS, the ability to keep this carbon stored under ground for thousands of years can never be guaranteed,” said Ms Bailey. “Even Solid Energy Chief Executive Don Elder acknowledges this (3).

“Every dollar invested in carbon capture and storage research is a wasted dollar if it diverts money away from renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

The Greenpeace report shows that carbon capture technology falls short on numerous counts. Carbon capture has not been made to work on anything approaching the scale needed for a full-scale power plant. And no one has yet successfully combined the ‘capture’ with the ’storage’ elements of the concept.

The process of capturing and storing carbon is also highly energy intensive. The increased energy requirements of CCS would effectively wipe out the power plant efficiency gains of the last 50 years. For every four CCS-equipped coal-fired power plants, a fifth would be needed just to make up the energy shortfall. CCS could also double plant costs and lead to electricity price hikes estimated between 21 and 91 per cent.

Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution scenario (4) shows that greatly improving energy efficiency and relying on renewable energy could halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the timeframe for preventing the worst impacts of climate change. Global renewable energy resources are sufficient to meet the world’s energy needs six times over.

Over 85 non-governmental organisations have joined Greenpeace in demanding that CCS not be used as an excuse for building new coal-fired power plants. The signatories include the Environmental Defence Society of New Zealand.

Notes to Editors:

(1) “False Hope: why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate”, Greenpeace International. May 2008 is available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/ccs. Also available: the Executive Summary of the report, an information sheet on CCS, three graphics (as PDFs) showing: the process of carbon capture; an overview of geological storage options and leakage pathways and potential impacts of CO2 escape, plus the NGO statement on carbon capture and storage.

(2) Solid Energy recently announced a $100 million investment in clean coal and alternative energy research over the next 20 years, in a bid to develop cleaner ways of burning coal and capturing and storing C02 emissions. Solid Energy is involved in the trial of CCS in Nirranda South, 240km west of Melbourne. The Otway Basin pilot project is the world’s largest demonstration of the deep geological storage of carbon dioxide. It’s partly funded by the New Zealand government and state-owned miner Solid Energy and will inject 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide 2km deep over the next two years.

(3) Solid Energy chief executive Don Elder told NZPA last month that it was impossible for industry to guarantee no leakage. In relation to Otway Basin (2) he said: “it is likely that only tiny, almost negligible, amount of the carbon dioxide pumped underground will escape.” He stated that there’s no guarantee that they could abide by regulations that required 99.99 per cent storage over thousands of years. Yet as is noted in False Hope, even if just 0.01 per cent leaks per annum, 50 per cent of the stored carbon dioxide will have leaked within 7000 years. If 1 per cent leaks per annum, 50 per cent will be lost within 70 years.

(4) http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/press/reports/nz-energy-revoluti on-report

ENDS

New Zealand doesn’t require its geothermal powerstations to reinject by law. One of the few in the world apparently. I learnt that Wairaki doesn’t much to my horror after taking a few swims at Fall James on the Waikato river after being told so by my tutor who wasn’t too happy about being a devout environmentalist.

Trevor.

> Geothermal is not the clean green source it is sold as- there are high levels of arsenic and other heavy metals, as well as sulphides and large quantities of dissolved carbon dioxide. Some geothermal generation has 80% of the carbon emissions of a thermal plant per KWh.

All these problems can be solved by using ‘double-cycle’ geothermal generation. This is where the geothermal liquid and gas that comes up is entirely in a closed pipe system, andf all goes back down once you’ve got the heat out of it. It’s called ‘double-cycle’ because the heat from the pipe opf geothermal fluid is transferred to water outside the pipe, and it is the boiling of this water that drives the turbine. AFAIK there is no geothermal plant like this in New Zealand yet.

I seriously doubt the methanol plant would be anywhere near economic if gas prices rise further- it was closed because of the lousy economics wasn’t it? No doubt it needs vast capital investment too.

There are no magic bullets wrt electricity. The best solution IMHO would be more BIG hydro, more wind, and retaining some thermal for peak. It is ridiculous having Whirinaki running so much, that must be costing a fortune…

But I Don’t agree about the LNG -that is a very long way off and still highly speculative. I see Maui just got another 7 years added to its life. Gas has a habit of turning up in greater quantities.

It should not head off geothermal as much of the geothermal is already in planning and approval if not construction. LNG is nowehre near it. You fail to recognise that geothermal has overpromised in the past and is not without limits.

And if you are worried about mercury emissions, best not take a swim in the Waikato downstream from Wairakei…