by frog
It’s a sorry statement, but true. The National Party’s schizophrenic behaviour concerning the power market is a sad indictment of their opportunism. First was their opposition to the Electricity Commission, which was put together as a plaster to fix the failures of the pseudo-market created by the National government in 1992. The Max Bradford “reforms” turned the world’s second most efficient electricity system into a false market purely for ideological reasons.
The Electricity Commission sought to secure some reserve generation for dry years, (which the market wasn’t providing), so they commissioned the Whirinaki plant, against the howls of market distortion coming from the National Party’s bench. They also sought to stockpile coal at Huntly, (not encouraged/allowed under the “market”), as a stop-gap measure should there be a failure of plant elsewhere or a dry year.
Finally, and again against howls of protest from the National benches, the government back-stopped the gas contracts that allowed E3P to go ahead. It would not have happened under the pseudo-market that National created.
E3P represents 385MW of plant that simply would not exist under a National government. Whirinaki represents 155MW that would not exist under a National government. The stockpile of coal outside Huntly would not exist under a National government. Did we need this capacity to cope with just the first bit of this dry year? You bet!
It is at the very least disingenuous and at the worst hypocritical that the National Party has grandstanded throughout the dry summer, scaremongering and exaggerating all along, when they would have done absolutely nothing to prepare for what we are going through.
The Winter Group has started its modest conservation campaign, even as the rains needed to avoid it are falling. We may not be out of the woods yet, but there is one thing we can be absolutely sure of – under National, the lights would already be out!
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament by frog on Mon, June 16th, 2008
Tags: crisis, E3P, electricity, exaggerating, national party, scaremongering, Whirinaki
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Isn’t blaming National in the 90s beyond tired?
What has the loose coalition of the left done since 1999?
Nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Will we be hearing any of this from the (mainly print) media who are (so far) clearly championing a national victory later this year?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter: You didn’t read the post. The 385 MWs of power is what was done. That is far from nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And what about all the power projects that have been cancelled because of the RMA? Not just all ‘dirty’ power generators either…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Typical National Party deception and bluster. This Party shows time and again that its only interest is to increase the profits of its MPS (many of which have commercial interests) and backers). Who cares if a ‘market’ is uncompetitive, and bad for consumers – at least it makes a bundle for the elite.
BP: Stop trolling!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
roger, i thought all the right wingers were rich pricks that were taking a pay cut to come to parliament?
surely it’s the left wingers who are there for the self interest. how does an MPs salary compare to a teacher’s?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
peteremcc:
“And what about all the power projects that have been cancelled because of the RMA? ”
There are “call in” provisions that allow the govt to make the final decision on resource consent. The RMA hasn’t stopped any electricity generation projects from going ahead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and the government has used those call in provisions to get power generation going has it? sounds like now you ARE blaming the government for not overruling the RMA…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
can i just say, the comments system here seems to suck.
some comments appear instantly, some disappear completely instantly, and others appear very late.
are the late ones being held for moderation? if so, what is triggering it, any why don’t we get a message saying it’s being moderated, so we don’t try and post it again?
frogmaster writes, yes sorry, we are aware that the comments system is not all it could be. as the comment moderation help file explains,
it was indeed the swear word in the comment that held that comment up, but as you see it was allowed with the word intact. The moderation filter is there just to try and prevent a locker room atmosphere that might encourage less than civil debate. </frogmaster>
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“sounds like now you ARE blaming the government for not overruling the RMA…?”
No, just that if any projects were absolutely essential we could use the call-in provisions. The fact is that generation capacity is adequate, and if there was much more we’d end up paying more for electricity, just so we could keep merrily wasting power 100% the time instead of having an electricity conservation campaign once every 5 or so years.
“i thought all the right wingers were r*ch pr*cks that were taking a pay cut to come to parliament?”
That’s the propaganda that National puts out. In reality however most of them own companies, are share-holders or are on a board of directors, etc….. Needless to say the more left the country goes the more equal society becomes, the less there is an obscene difference in power and wealth – so the less they are able to inflate their own egos with a false feeling of superiority. Must be a nightmare for the poor dears.
“surely it’s the left wingers who are there for the self interest.”
I’m sure there are careerists in there, as with any political party, but I’m sure that principled conviction drives most of them. Why else would you dedicate your life to sticking up for other people who are disadvantaged by accident of birth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“E3P represents 385MW of plant that simply would not exist under a National government. Whirinaki represents 155MW that would not exist under a National government. The stockpile of coal outside Huntly would not exist under a National government. ”
Bad National Party! Bad! Fancy not building more power plants and not stockpiling coal. Hang on – is this the Green Party blog I’m reading?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam – I thought frog’s post was about highlighting the National Party’s hypocrisy rather than aggrandising Labour’s energy strategy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Sam – I thought frog’s post was about highlighting the National Party’s hypocrisy rather than aggrandising Labour’s energy strategy?”
Which is true. But we have the Standard to point out the hypocrisy of National while ignoring the glaring failings of the current Government. What this post should have said is that they’re both f’ed, and that a sustained campaign of funding for efficiency measures would avoid having to build that generation in the first place. New Zealand wastes immense amounts of energy – the low hanging fruit are still there, but the Government is too blind to see them. They’ve gone for a free market approach with EECA, which does a little to inform people, but doesn’t actually intervene.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the solution to a dry winter power crisis is to build more power stations then the solution to morning traffic congestion must be to build more motorways.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The question is WHO WILL BUILD THE NEW ELECTRICTY GENERATORS surely.
I must have missed that bit in Cullens budget. You know the commitment of a few billion for new electricity generation capacity.
Neither Labour no National have the gumption.
Arguments between the right leaning Mc’s and the left leaning Roger Nome is pure purile drivel.
IT DOES NOT MATTER. Talk about walking backwards into the future.
Both the left and tright seem to have this juvinile need to line up all the dots before progressing onwards.
Just budget for, and build some electricity generation. I dont care if in 1973, 1984 1990 something happened and has to be regurgitated ad- infinitum plus blame laid.
No wonder New Zealand is going to the dogs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>385 MWs of power
Clearly, it isn’t enough. Every winter we have the same old scenario, and prices rocket. How does this help the proletariat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, that last comment was a little harsh on the Standard. It doesn’t ignore the failings of the Government completely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
E3P should not have been built. Or more accurately, the government should not have provided price guarantees for gas to supply E3P, not because it is a current market distortion, but because in twenty years time it will be a very bad economic deal for New Zealanders.
The underlying problem with the NZ power mess is that it is neither government owned, so we cant directly hold the government to account, nor is it in equity ownership that would allow shareholders to hold the company to account. It exists in a kind of nether world. Its prime function appears to be to provide heavily taxed electricity and hang the consequences.
Although everyone knows what we have is bad, the question is quite how can it be unraveled out of its present mess, and if it could be unraveled, would there actually be any benefit in doing so, now that its been slapped about a lot…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
George, Gerrit -
I agree that Labour’s energy strategy is problematic. They focus far too much on expanding production, and far too little on measures focussed on efficiency gains (i.e. cheaper off-peak rates and more expensive peak rates).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
we don’t need the government to budget billions for generating electricity, we just need to make sure there is some incentive for private companies to generate electricity (ie: let them make a profit, and stop putting regulation in the way).
why does the left see the market as an acceptable solution to climate change (cap + trade, taxes and even delaying the ETS because of ‘current market conditions’) but it’s not good enough for power generation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The current pseudo-market for electricity has cost NZ far, far more than any of the “think-big” projects ever did. The estimates are $7 billion and counting.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4576736a13.html
However the CEOs, accountants and PR firms are making a bundle, thats what is important here right? I get a warm feeling knowing that 1/3 of the bill goes to pay for shiny BMWs or as a hidden tax back to the government.
Kevyn- sly little comment there! The analogy doesn’t hold water though- it would be more like parking building owners pushing for more used cars to be imported…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Incidentally, why does this blog still not have an authorisation statement?
It’s clearly not a ‘personal’ blog…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frogblog announces: Under a National government NZ could be generating 1.59 Gigawatts less of carbon polluting thermal power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley:
The NZ power market is small, which allows vertical integration and oligopilistic cartels to emerge, so I don’t see why you think a free-market approach would benefit us.
A government-controlled PPP model would be interesting, as it would allow the government more strategic control of the energy sector, and would mean that its accounts would be transparent and open to criticism, which would encourage efficiency. It would offer us the best aspects of both private and public ownership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My post was clear. Labour, supported by the Greens, have been in government since 1999. In 2008, we’re still experiencing power shortages and high energy prices. Why? They have failed to manage the energy supply effectively. The solution is to build more power generation.
There is nothing, whatsoever, to be gained by blaming National in the 90s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“My post was clear. Labour, supported by the Greens, have been in government since 1999.”
That’s your problem – you start from a faulty premise. Labour, supported by first the Alliance, then United Future, then United Future and New Zealand First, have been in Government that time. The Greens managed to secure some concessions in return for matters of confidence and supply, but for the most part they’ve been left out in the cold.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
peteremcc – This blog does have an endorsement, and has had since the requirement went in! Despite my not having to toe the party line perfectly, it is in fact a blog of the Green Party. We never claimed anything to the contrary. Technically, being a blog, it does not require an endorsement. But, as you point out, it is a party organ so we are more than happy to endorse it as such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d rather see $600M spent on installinf passive solar water heating in 150,000 homes. That would save more power than Project Aqua would have generated and the savings sould start from the very first installation.
The one-eyed view that we need more generation utterly FAILS to comprehend that we could make more and cheaper benefits NOW by thinking about spending money to SAVE power.
The problem from a commercial view (the only one some people are capable of, apparently) is that you can’t charge for power not used. It is a fundamenta flaw in the thinking of people who want to build generation – no matter what the environmental costs – without thinking for evena moment about how the SAME MONEY might be spent to save even more power than the big project would generate…..
That the blue-tinged folk here can’t seem to understand this merely adds weight to the argument their crowd aren’t fit to govern NZ. One-eyed and religious on policy instead of being pragmatice and thinking about how to best get the job done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To that I say MMP. The Greens have enabled the Labour government.
As Gerrit points out, the situation is clear cut. We clearly don’t have enough power generation. “Just budget for, and build some electricity generation”.
I don’t see the Greens pushing to do that. If fact, they’re charging in the opposite direction, whilst pretending wind farms are the answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What NZ needs to promote is locally owned energy supply projects. People would then get over the nimby attitude, say if they owned the wind turbine. Local supply would get over the problem of energy loss, when electricity has to be supplied over large distances.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – another characteristically vapid post.
“we’re still experiencing power shortages”
I don’t think there’s any problem with supply at the moment. It’s electricity conservation campaigns once or twice a decade, or paying to fund massive generators that only operate for a few months every decade. This is what you don’t seem to understand.
“There is nothing, whatsoever, to be gained by blaming National in the 90s.”
Why do you never provide reasoning or evidence to back up your superficial claims? Are you really surprised that you’re called a troll so often?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – stop spreading lies. The Greens have never been part of any government. In fact, we voted more consistently with the Maori Party than any other party. We even spent a full term voting against the Labour government on confidence and supply.
Oh, and we don have the same old scenario every winter. Thatś rubbish and you cannot produce any numbers to support such a claim.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peteremcc
“we just need to make sure there is some incentive for private companies to generate electricity (ie: let them make a profit, and stop putting regulation in the way).’
Totally agree, and I thought this was the case.
Except I saw a item on TV news where someone was micro generating electricity using wind mills and solar power, but if he fed his surplus back into the grid, he does not get paid for it.
Can anyone clarify, surely this cant be true!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog, i don’t care whether this blog is endorsed by the green party or not…
it requires an authorisation statement, as per the EFA.
only personal, non-commercial, blogs are exempt from the EFA.
this is not a personal blog, so it is not exempt.
please read the law you voted for, and stop spouting rubbish about endorsedment and exemptions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Why do you never provide reasoning or evidence to back up your superficial claims?
Because my point is self evident. Pointing blame at a government that existed in 1992 achieves what, exactly?
>>I don’t think there’s any problem with supply at the moment
So you don’t think energy could be a lot cheaper?
>>BP – stop spreading lies.
“The Green Party agrees to provide stability to a Labour/Progressive coalition government by co-operating on agreed policy and budget initiatives and not opposing confidence or supply for the term of this Parliament. “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wasn’t it 2002/2005 National election policy to speed up RMA consents? Perhaps if that had happened we would have a few of the 20 or so windfarms that have been planned. Westwind, Te Waka and Te Rere Hau likely could be built by now for a total of about 400 MW, a summers operation of these would have allowed more water to be retained in the dams and there’d be less of a crisis.
Instead we’ve got 540 MW of brand new carbon polluting thermal plants and a guarantee that 1050 MW coal burning Huntly can run non-stop. This is really a wasted opportunity years in the making that has us producing masses of AGW gas. If this is the product of government regulation, bring back the market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP-
“Because my point is self evident”
No it isn’t. Re-visiting the 1990s shows the current National Party front bench up for the irrational free-market ideologues that they are. People should know about this.
“So you don’t think energy could be a lot cheaper?”
Presumably you mean electricity. For industry and retail, who consume 70% of the electricity, the price is amongst the cheapest in the OECD. For residential consumers the price is still cheaper than average.
Though residential may be over-priced, which points to the need for more regulation and less National Party style thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What NZ needs to promote is locally owned energy supply projects.
…
Local supply would get over the problem of energy loss, when electricity has to be supplied over large distances.”
So each town could have a coal power station like they did 50 years ago?
Since the power lost in transmission is a few percent, perhaps 10% on a bad day; the economies of scale really are a lot better in having a few large stations than lots of little ones.
Cheap and reliable electricity is eseential to run a first world economy, and local microgeneration is neither.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have installed solar water heating in every house I have ever designed and built – and for good reasons, which most people overlook.
However, they only heat the water when the sun is shining or and ambient temperatures are a third of the temp you want in the cylinder.
Hence all that has to be backed up locally or through the grid.
This is no problem when there are not too many but as with wind power, once you talk of serious megawatts then the back up must be there.
Sorry, no free lunch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“unaha-closp”
Supply isn’t a problem at the moment. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>current National Party front bench up for the irrational free-market ideologues
I’d take a free-market ideologue over crusty comm****ts in drag anyday.
But lets wait and see what National 2008 has to say, eh. Here’s a starter for ten: national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=12069
>>For residential consumers the price is still cheaper than average
Lets make it a lot cheaper. In fact, lets aim for one of the cheapest. Lets use our natural advantages to benefit our own people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Lets make it a lot cheaper. In fact, lets aim for one of the cheapest.”
Since National’s free-market reforms residential electricity has become more expensive, a lot more expensive. That’s the problem with a small uncompetitive, unregulated market, if you don’t regulate it properly the small consumers always lose.
At least Labour has introduced the electricity commission. National wouldn’t even have a regulatory body.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No UK-Kiwi, where did you get that from?
I think you will find that 10% is a lot, considering much savings need to be made, if there is no normal amount of rain this winter. .
You are clearly looking at the problem using a short term view. The cost of micro generation would come down, as investment into increases.
One study (Barry, 2007) has shown that it offers a number of advantages: significantly higher local public acceptance, which would clearly remove the barriers of NIMBY.
Clearly you are viewing this in a narrow ‘short term economic’ view point, not a long term sustainability view point.
Supply, not demand is the real issue here. If local communities owned their own energy supply, they will tend place more onus on not wasting energy.
Have a look at
http://www.pce.govt.nz/reports/allreports/1_877274_41_0.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Since National’s free-market reforms
Roger, Labour have been in government since 1999. What have they done to reverse the issues? Clearly SFA, else we wouldn’t have ongoing power shortages and skyrocketing spot prices during winter.
And how much is the back-up costing us in AGW penalties?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – No, blaming National for the 90s is still as valid as ever, considering the lifespan of a typical power plant. We are still living with the legacies of the mother of all budgets, and the failed ideology of Rogernomics from both Labour and National. I called Labourś response to the Max Bradford disaster a plaster. I did not exonerate their actions, I have merely pointed out that under National, the lights would already be out. This is a point that you have not disputed, simply avoided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – it’s not a supply problem. Industrial and Retail still get extremely cheap electricity. The residential market is possibly being over-charged, though it’s difficult to tell because there’s a lack of transparency in the market.
That means more regulation, not less as National would have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>failed ideology of Rogernomics
Eh?
New Zealand was a basket case. Labour did what needed doing, and not before time. What would you have done? Pleaded with the EU to stop being so protectionist (irony!) and return us back to the good old days?
>>No, blaming National for the 90s is still as valid as ever
No, it isn’t. You may as well blame every National government that has ever been for not planning ahead. But where does that get you? Absolutely nowhere.
>>the lights would already be out.
They would not – what utter nonsense. What government is going to let the lights go out?
Well, the Greens might if they carry on with their non-solutions to real energy problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>there’s a lack of transparency in the market
I agree with you. And who owns most of the power infrastructure?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That means more regulation
I admit it, the task is too big to try and explain to you why more regulation is not the answer to fix supply problems. Regulation may have its uses, but not to fix supply.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
rogernome,
The reason that we do not have a supply problem is because the government has bought 155 MW of inefficient diesel generators and underwritten a 385 MW gas plant and has stockpiled enough coal to keep Huntly running at 1050 MW. This is not a crisis to you, because you obviously deny AGW is occuring. We are burning carbon unnecessarily because we have delayed 2 – 3 years the construction of non-carbon emitting windfarms through useless resource regulation.
National campaigned in 2002 & 2005 to streamline resource consents, we’d have more windpower and wouldn’t need to burn such massive amounts of fossil fuels.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
” and the failed ideology of Rogernomics from both Labour and National”
Oh really?, please do tell me where that ideology failed, the reason NZ was so well placed to take advantage of the recent economic good times was because of the policies of Sir Roger and Richardson.
Yes we should have done a lot better over the last eight years but that is the direct result of having a useless socialist government and the worst minister of finance in living memory (and yes that does include Muldoon)
The results are there for all to see Frog, while you claim (incorrectly) that Sir Roger and Ruth’s ideology failed the facts do not support your argument, I also find it fascinating that you want to replace their ideology with a socialist/communist system that had not worked anywhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, if Rogernomics has failed, then why are all these policies still in existence today?
A floated New Zealand Dollar
GST
No subsidies to farmers
No controls on capital
Most privatised entities are still privatised (of 30, only 2 have been repurchased)
SOEs
and so on.
Rogernomics never failed; it was just that it involved massive adjustments to our economy that took some time to allow our economy to adjust. In fact, had we carried on with Muldoonist policy, I bet the IMF would have had to bail us out.
Also, under National, the lights would not be out. Under National, a bunch of NIMBYs in Otago would not have stopped Project Aqua; under National, a bunch of NIMBYs in Waiuku would not have stopped that wind farm; under National, the RMA would have been reformed and generation would have been constructed.
Also, under National, a couple more of the power generators would have been privatised, and so we would not have a de-facto monopoly, we would instead have real competition, and we wouldn’t have a greedy government who hikes up the power charges so they can get higher dividends to pay for train sets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# john-ston Says:
June 16th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
> Also, under National, a couple more of the power generators would have been privatised, and so we would not have a de-facto monopoly, we would instead have real competition, and we wouldn’t have a greedy government who hikes up the power charges so they can get higher dividends to pay for train sets.
The government doesn’t hike up power prices – that’s actually market forces. In the case of a standard commodity like electricity, the market price is set at the margins, by the cost of running the most expensive power station that needs to be run in order to produce the amount of electricity people want to buy. That means that the more efficient producers make huge profits.
It’s actually the same as what’s happening in the oil industry. The price of oil is kept up by the high marginal costs of running Canadian oil-sand oil extraction, and this high price means that the ultra-cheap Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia makes huge profits for its owners, because they can get away with selling their oil at the same price as the Canadians have to sell theirs to break even.
A state monopoly would probably actually lead to much lower prices, because it would probably be required by the government to price its electricity based on the average cost rather than the marginal cost.
This is one issue over which socialists and Greens are likely to disagree. I actually support the market model which leads to the higher price, because it gives a cost of electricity which reflects the true cost of increasing electricity consumption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, whoa.. I should have wrote demand, not supply
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Okay, here is the thing, ultimately, the first thing that is needed id for consumer tunned off lights and everything else that saves power. this is the cheapest and efficient way to save energy. it is also hard, as it is trying to get people to change behavior.
Local energy is far more efficient than centralised energy supply, efficient = input/output. The lower the input versus the output, the better. The greater the distance of energy supply, the less efficient the energy supply is.
I don’t know where you get your sources from UK Kiwi, but it is wrong. Micro generation is far more efficient than centralised large scale supply. Are you still living in the think big 80′s.
There are indeed issues, but more investment in micro generation would bring the costs down, supply and demand, etc.
It is far more cost efficient to install many wind turbines, hydro, etc than a huge coal power station.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
but its not hard Tush, it’s called price.
if people are paying high prices for power, they’ll conserve it more.
same with water. charge for water, and your conservation efforts will be much more effective.
same as for free printing at university.
same reasoning as why Labour have delayed the petrol entry to the ETS as prices are already so high.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OMS wrote …ambient temperatures are a third of the temp you want in the cylinder.
Cr*p and you know it. Solar water heating has exactly nothing to do with ambient temperatures and everything to do with incident solar radiation.
Funny how my Thermocell setup at 43.5 degrees South supplies water at 43 even on a cold sunny 8 degree day in the middle of winter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter, I think you are making an assumption here. For some things, sure an increase in price will lower demand, whereas there are other commodities, a high price does not reflect demand. Take for instance, tobacco; the simplistic notion of supply and demand does not apply here.
Same with electricity, a high price does not necessarily reflect consumption; people still need to heat their cold winter homes, regardless of price.
To charge at the end of the month is ridiculous. Imagine going shopping for food and then getting a bill at the end of the month, it would not work.
Where I talk about …”There are indeed issues, but more investment in micro generation would bring the costs down, supply and demand, etc.? This is production side, not consumption side, the notion of supply and demand does apply.
Water, electricity, it doesn’t matter, if you really want to change behavior, place a user payers charge on it (or pollutor pays (which I am surprised ACT does not support in term of ETS)) and then provide a real time meter on site, so people know how much it is costing them. BTW, sure there are issues surrounding charging for water, which don’t want to go into now, but let’s face it, thanks to the RMA, water is privatised already.
Sure the initial costs for real time meters would be high, but it would decrease energy usage on the demand side, which is the real problem
? same reasoning as why Labour have delayed the petrol entry to the ETS as prices are already so high.? I don’t think the government delayed this for any thing else but because it’s an election year. I believe that it’s is not because they thing that the high prices will reduce GHG emissions.
Anyways, I don’t see what you are trying to say Peter, what you wrote (though too simplistic for this case) is obvious.
Are you just trying to make a point, because you feel you need to comment on a ‘left wing’ blog?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When it comes to power generation using wind, efficiency is largely irrelevant. What matters is $/W, i.e. how much bang for the buck. A larger turbine gather disproportionally more energy and therefore generates more electricity for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is height – a larger turbine on a higher tower is exposed to higher wind speeds, and energy out is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. This is why the move is to larger turbine – even as large as 3MW each! Microgeneration on the flat cannot compete with large-scale turbines on wind-swept ridges.
Transmission line losses aren’t huge in New Zealand – about 15% on average and that includes some of the AC-DC-AC conversion losses on the Cook Strait cable.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Setting up 540MW of new(ish) fossil-fuelled generation wasn’t necessarily a mistake. Setting up Huntley with a decent stockpile of coal wasn’t a mistake. The mistake was in setting up a pricing system that encouraged the major power generators/retailers to rely on these sources during dry years rather than to invest in their own.
Even now, there are good reasons to consider the Electricity Commission contracting Contact Energy to keep the New Plymouth plant operational as reserve generation.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
uk_kiwi, Not a sly little comment if you understand the similarity between the enrgy efficiency rebound effect and the induced traffic effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_homeostasis
In fact VTPI uses the terms interchangeably.
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm64.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OutinFront claims that “The problem from a commercial view (the only one some people are capable of, apparently) is that you can’t charge for power not used.”
That’s not a view shared by Phillips (who invented the cfl) or Pink Batts.
In fact the elctricity reforms are the perfect example of the free market performing exactly as the theory says it should. It just hasn’t performed as politicians and the media pretend it should. The theory says the objective of an energy free market is to meet the economy’s energy needs at the lowest cost to the economy. Politicians and the media keep claiming that the free market produces lower prices. That’s acompletely different objective and one that will only be met if it is consistent with meeting needs at the lowest cost. The fact that the reforms have resulted in higher power prices and much lower actual prices for cfl’s and lower real prices for insulation, solar water heaters and double glazing is proof that the market is working the way the theory says it works.
The theory does have two major flaws. It assumes all consumers make economically rational decisions when we don’t more often than we do. Worse, it assumes we are perfectly informed. Labour was able to undermine the electricity market reforms for almost a decade by making vague promises to do “something” about the electricity when they become the government. If they had made a specific promise to cap line charges and let kwh charges rise as needed the reforms would have delivered substantial efficiency gains years ago and we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So each town could have a coal power station like they did 50 years ago?”
Nope, 50 years ago they had micro-hydro, and some of them are still operating today, Lake Coleridge for instance. Unless you’re talking about some other country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor29, Your bang for the buck argument is quite correct for propeller turbines. The solution when downsizing is to drasticly reduce installed cost by changing to simpler designs suited to rooftop operation. This achieves the same objective of reduced $/W. The Humdinger Windbelt’s approach is literally flapping in the breeze. It’s efficiency comes from how the motion is converted to electricity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually it isn’t so much $/W but $/Wh that matters, and well sited wind turbines generate power more often than microgeneration that has to make do with the sie on offer. This means lower cost per Watt-hour for the big machines.
Solar microgeneration might be more cost-effective, but it faces a challenge in the land of the long white cloud.
Microgeneration simply can’t take advantage of wave or tidal resources which I believe will become very important resources for New Zealand.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tushara Kodikara wrote: “Have a look at
http://www.pce.govt.nz/reports/allreports/1_877274_41_0.pdf ”
Great, another report that demands that taxpayers and consumers pay for expensive toy generators because they are ‘cool and sustainable and stuff’.
Love this quote: “Widespread adoption of local energy systems is held back by a number of factors, including: the market’s failure to fully value all the benefits of local energy, making it comparatively expensive”
Hahahah! So it’s the market’s fault that microgeneration produces very little electricity and at high cost. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up.
Then at the end, there is the usual demand that the taxpayer and billpayers subsidise these expensive installations, while still paying for the large power stations which are necessary because of the unreliability of microgeneration.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, fastbike – we are at nearly 46deg south, 460m above sea level, and get very hot water regardless of ambient T (even below 0), from our evacuated tube system. The collector loses so little heat that any accumulated snow has to be swept off of it – fortunately it’s not on the roof!
Of course it still doesn’t do much in the rain, e.g. today, although it does contribute under moderate cloud cover.
It’s crazy that we don’t yet have an effective program of incentives for getting SHW into houses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
uk_kiwi wrote: “Love this quote: “Widespread adoption of local energy systems is held back by a number of factors, including: the market’s failure to fully value all the benefits of local energy, making it comparatively expensive?”
I would read that as “…the market’s failure to fully cost the impacts of large-scale generation, making it comparatively cheaper”. Nothing to laugh about, really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Obviously you have no understanding of the term market failures. Look at the person who produced the report, Morgan Williams, versus a pseudonym who has not produced any counter arguments and points have added little to any solutions… not a tough choice to pick from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dr Morgan Williams may be a clearly respected ecologist, but electrical engineering is more relevant to this topic I would have thought. The report reads like a prescription for a bunch of hippies on an isolated island, not a first world technological nation.
The market has not failed, it has recognised that there are economies of scale, and that a 500MW hydro dam can provide huge quantities of reliable electricity at the fraction of the cost of some washing machine motors in a stream; which is actually advocated in this report! Otherwise you would ALREADY see microgeneration as it would be cost effective.
The non-monetary benefits mentioned are all warm fuzzies like having “control” of your electricity supply (whatever that means); and being “sustainable”, despite the life of a microgenerator being a few years at best compared to centuries for a large dam.
There might be negative externalities in the case of a coal or gas plant, but in the case of hydro or large scale wind the negative externalities are few and far between (which is why it is amazing the Greens are against hydro power.)
“To preserve continuity of supply, the local energy system must … be able to connect to the national grid when local generation is not available, ”
Here is the money quote in my opinion. The National Grid must be able to supply these people when their toy generators aren’t working. So not only do we have to pay for their microgenerators, we have to pay for the grid upgrades and new power stations anyway!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps that was a bit harsh, I’m sure that some of the authors in this report had engineering qualifications- Morgan just wrote the forward. Some of the things in this report are obviously good ideas, it’s just that this whole “get off the grid” mentality is really odd- it’s sort of an “I’m alright, Jack” attitude that I don’t like. Even George Monbiot agrees with me.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/06/small-is-useless/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tush, i completely agree that real time meters would be great, but as you point out, also very expensive. What you didn’t mention was who was going to pay – i’m presuming your presuming the government will.
Surely if it’s going to save so much power, people would want the meters installed themselves if they were paying the full true price of electricity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter, I believe that both the retailer (which will of course be transferred to the consumer) and public should pay for it. After it is a public good, overall reductions in household consumption would benefit the whole of society. As I said, the first thing that needs to happen is a reduction in demand, before an increase in supply. This is simple cost effectiveness.
“Surely if it’s going to save so much power, people would want the meters installed themselves if they were paying the full true price of electricity.?
People don’t work that way, telling them that they can save money will not change their behavior. There are many barriers in the way, which need to be overcome. You are a smart guy, I suggest reading some of what Doug McKenzie-Mohr wrote on social marketing and environmental behavioral change, if you haven’t already, for a different perspective.
Subsidies meter would decrease the demand, and therefore the tax payer would not have to pay for increasing the larger scale energy supply. The cost of meters would reduce, if there was large scale investment and production of local industry. Do you agree, using tax payer money to invest in public goods, thereby reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer, a good thing?
uk_kiwi- Morgan may be a qualified ecologist, but is still a smart person and has knowledge exceeding his PhD. Although he did not write the report, he is accountable for it, so it is of the highest quality. The writers of the report are highly skilled researchers. I believe that the report is of the highest quality. The reports produced by the PCE, under his leadership, are well respected by all major political parties.
I am not suggesting wind only as the only solution, but one of many. The article applies to the UK, but you cannot compare apples to oranges. New Zealand is unique, compared to other countries. It has plenty of renewable energy available to supply household’s energy.
As I have said before, people are more open to renewable, such as wind, if they have ownership over it. There is great potential in micro generation. The study by Barry, 2007, a Master’s thesis has looked at public perception and wind. It found locally owned micro generation is favored.
The fact is, you could continue investing in large scale energy supply, or invest in better ideas. For instance, nano-paints are expensive at the moment, but investment in this will see the costs come down. In a couple decades, households will not need to have to rely on the national grid, they just need to paint the outside of their houses. Remember that products inside the hoke will be more energy efficient.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“In a couple decades, households will not need to have to rely on the national grid, they just need to paint the outside of their houses.”
Are you for real?! What happens on a cold dark night?
This takes the cake, I give up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of course you do uk_kiwi, you seem to be stuck in 20C thinking, but luckily science hasn’t. Industry and governments have embraced nanotechnology. Investment in this has increased in the billons over the last decade. The technology will drastically improve over 20 years.
Nano-paint will turn sunlight in energy and can be stored away. To answer your question,? Are you for real?! What happens on a cold dark night?? , the energy stored during the day will be used to supply energy.
Have a read over http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solareclips/2003.01/20030128-6.html , remember that this current research, not future research.
I predict your next remark will be on the lines of, what about cloudy days, well there is still UV light hitting the nano-paint. Combined with energy efficient products inside and locally owned micro-generation, this should not be a problem. I think, the way I see it, investment in smart technology is key, the way you seem to see it, investment in last century’s technology is key. What are you, a luddite?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
uk_kiwi, Before governments decided that subsidised rural electrification was a vote winner thet market had favoured distributed energy systems.
Maybe the market would have turned in favour of centralised electricity production without government susbsidies but I doubt that the market would have favoured expensive storm susceptable overhead wires ahead of the cheaper more secure distributed generation alternatives. Especially as many of the most popular distributed technologies used direct mechanical-mechanical convesrions that eliminated the need for expensive eletric storage batteries. They could simply pump water into a tank when the wind was blowing and gravity feed it to wherever they needed water, whenever they needed it. Cheap, effective, simple and safe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
uk_kiwi said:
“…they just need to paint the outside of their houses…”
Yeah, right! A moment’s thought about what you are trying to do with a solar panel and you will realise that it will be a lot more than just a coat of paint. Essentially, a solar panel is two conductive layers separated by an insulating layer that has some form of semiconductor property. The output is always low voltage – around 1-2 Volts, so a decent sized panel is made up of a number of cells in series, but each cell outputs a low voltage . To get a decent power level requires a high current, which has to be distributed through those conductive layers – without blocking too much of the light. Then you need to keep the layers from shorting to each other, so just painting on a conductive layer followed by an insulating layer and another conductive layer is asking for trouble, even if it would work in theory.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)