Kaukapakapa gears up for a fight

Residents of Kaukapakapa northwest of Auckland are gearing up for the fight of their lives in an effort to stop Genesis from building a 480 MW gas turbine generating station in the middle of their paddocks. I understand through the grapevine that John Key, after public pressure in the House, has finally agreed to meet the good people from the Kaukapakapa Area Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc. (KARRA)

Despite the project being in his Helensvile electorate, it seems Mr Key was reluctant to meet KARRA until questions in the House embarrased him into making the appointment.

The question I want to ask is what business has Genesis building another large gas plant when it took a government guarantee in order for them to build the E3P plant at Huntly? If E3P wasn’t economic without a government handout, what makes the bigger Rodney plant stack up without one?

The Energy Data File from the MED says we’ll be running seriously short of gas (at least as far as electricity generation is concerned) around 2015. That’s just when Genesis’ mega plant would want to start operating.

Meanwhile, the Electricity Commission, in their July 2008 Draft Statement of Opportunities, has ignored the plant in all but their High Gas Discovery Scenario, because its economics don’t stack up so it never gets included. It doesn’t even make their likely-to-be-built list. So what is going on?

Whose hair-brained, think-big idea was this? Could it even stack up economically to the scrutiny of a real board of directors? Or has our SOE and its shareholding Minister lost the plot?

Should we be committing to another 30 years of over priced fossil fuelled generation when we have peak oil and climate change beating down our door? That’s what I would like to know, and I am sure that those behind the Stop Rodney Power Station website would like to know too. Keep us posted!

103 Comments Posted

  1. greengeek,

    While I may have a leaning towards your position of negative growth.

    I do not hink that the Greens would be able to implement their social policies (eg. warm housing for everyone – a Sue Bradfod innitiative) without growth.

    Unless you severly restructure the whole economic model that New Zealand currently runs on (such as increased taxation for the workers – nationalisation of private assests, etc.).


    Still hiding behind the district scheme I see, to not answer a simple yes or no. Never mind.

  2. Gerrit says: A generator powered by a turbine engine running vegetable oils would be my guess. Small enough to fit in the back yard. Perhaps a bigger version on the street corner to power a whole neighbourhood?

    Such things may well be beneficial at times. It makes no sense to me to try to be totally ‘carbon neutral’. I don’t think we appreciate what that concept (fully enforced) would do to our lives.

    I see it as vital that we pressure successive governments to make green energy choices as their FIRST preference, not going straight to gas, which becomes a gateway to coal, etc etc.

    I would rather see a lull in our ‘growth’, and an increase in winter power blackouts (therefore waking up the populace to what our problems really are) for a period of time while we readjusted to energy budgeting, and focussing on green generation.

    If there are going to be changes to the RMA then it needs to be change that promotes green energy, but does not loosen up the controls on dirty energy.

    I guess that distinction is implied in the question you put to Kaukapakapa.

  3. Copied from one of the submissions Gerrit refers to:

    “While willing to accept its share of the environmental cost of supplying New Zealand with electricity, KARRA believes that this should be from renewable wind and tidal generation projects proposed for the Rodney district. All new buildings should incorporate solar energy measures for space and water heating.”

    I’ll stop rising to Gerrit’s bait now. Thanks to Frog for raising the issue on here in the first place. Time for me to bow out….

  4. Kaukapakapa,

    I have read the submissions and one thing clearly stands out. The opposition to the gas fired station hides the fact that you would be against ANY new power generation system.

    Hiding behind the Rodney district plan.

    So personally (you as an individual property owner), would you object to a geothermal power station if it was shown to be feasable?


    “Gerrit, would you accept a law that said you had to live on the power you could generate in your own back yard?”

    Absolutely, if the local council by laws would allow me to.

    I would put in a windmill plus install solar panels to feed deep cycle batteries, and drill a deep bore to geothermal harvest heat for hot water, etc.

    Unfortunately the council wont allow me to chop down the native tress on my property to enable a wind mill and allow the sun direct access to my rooftop solar panels, prevents me from drilling for geothermal energy unless I get RMA consent, etc.

    You are right in that energy is a finite resource. In a couple of million (trillion?) years the suns energy will have been spent and the solar system we live in will collapse.

    Untill then there is no energy shortage. The shortage is in ideas and capital in how we can harvest the best options.

    Personally think that individual business and private property power generators will become the norm.

    The we can get rid of all public power generators and those butt ugly high tension power lines.

    Technology for that is not too far away. A generator powered by a turbine engine running vegetable oils would be my guess. Small enough to fit in the back yard. Perhaps a bigger version on the street corner to power a whole neighbourhood?

  5. Gerrit Says:
    Notice that Kaukapakapa cant answer the simple question…

    That is NIMBY.

    Gerrit, would you accept a law that said you had to live on the power you could generate in your own back yard?

    If you would not commit your own back yard to your personal energy needs, why should you have the right to use so much power that other communities were forced to have your generation facility in THEIR back yard?

    It annoys me that domestic users just keep ramping up their energy demands, without understanding the limitations on our current generation capacity.

    Rather than forcing existing communities to lose some of their lifestyle quality it is time we encouraged energy users to learn that energy is a finite resource, and constant growth will only become possible when each user confronts the real costs (money/environment/lifestyle), pays the real price, and yields up their own back yard for the benefit of the rest of us.

  6. Yep. Each and every proposal should be judged on its own merits.

    Look, can you PLEASE just read the submissions? Then you’ll get an idea of some of the many things I and the rest of the community took into consideration before voicing our opposition to Genesis’s plans.

  7. “However you don’t have an objection to a similar sized but differently fuelled power station in your valley. That is good.”
    Gerrit – you’re making assumptions again 😉

  8. Basically the only difference between a geothermal and a jet turbine power station is the source of the steam. One from underground the other from an aircraft jet engine.

    Now I can understand your objection to gas being used in a powerstation.

    However you dont have an objection to a similar sized but differently fuelled power station in your valley. That is good.

    It was the basic question I was asking you.

    We got there in a very confluting way.

  9. From a Sinclair Knight Mertz report on ‘Sustainable Energy Supply Options’ – commissioned in 2006 by the Rodney District Council:

    “4.5 Geothermal
    There are no high temperature geothermal resources in Rodney. However, there are two low temperature systems associated with the hot springs at Waiwera and Parakai, which are used for recreation. Lower temperature waters (similar to those at Parakai) have been used for greenhouse heating in the Bay of Plenty region. Geothermal is unlikely to become a significant energy source for Rodney District.”

  10. Toad, the most recent information I can find on the extent of NZ’s geothermal fields is on these two sites, one being that Electricity Commission report on geothermal I’ve referred to previously

    I know Rodney district has geothermal under Parakai, Makarau and Waiwera but as they never get referred to, I assume they’re not viable. You’ve got me curious to find out more now. I shall report back!

  11. Given that geothermal provides baseload generation without greenhouse gas emissions, I would support building geothermal stations almost anywhere they were technologically and economically viable ahead of building gas-fired (or worse, coal fired) ones.

    The one proviso that I would put on that is that geothermal fluids frequently contain significant quantities of mercury, and effective mitigation is required to ensure that this does not enter either the atmosphere or waterways as waste from geothermal power stations.

    While there are geothermal fields in Rodney District, I have no idea whether developing them for electricity generation is either technologically or economically viable. Anyone here know?

  12. As I said Gerrit, I don’t know enough about geothermal to give you an answer. I don’t automatically discount something without looking into it properly first.

    Copied from Genesis Energy’s Executive Summary of the Rodney project:

    “The major components of the project include the following:
    • Gas turbines (“GT?), driving generators to produce electricity.
    • Heat Recovery Steam Generators (“HRSG?), one for each GT using hot GT
    exhaust to raise steam.
    • Steam turbines (“ST?), using steam from the HRSGs to drive generators to
    produce electricity.
    • Air cooled condensers (“ACC?), condenses exhaust from the steam turbines.
    • Associated infrastructure for the supply of gas to the station and
    transmission of electricity away from the station.

    The proposed Rodney Power Station will ultimately comprise two combined cycle units, each incorporating one GT, one HRSG, one ST and one ACC. Other infrastructure requirements include accessory buildings (including control room, workshop, storage areas, laboratory, office and administration facilities), facilities for the supply, treatment, storage and discharge of water, gas supply plant, a high voltage substation, and electricity transmission lines. Water will be used for a variety of purposes in the proposed Rodney Power Station ranging from treated water for the plant steam cycle and plant washing to domestic

  13. toad,

    I dont think you will find vandalism in that good town.

    One thing that is not clear for the wind farm is where the power grid cables will go.

    I suspect they will enter the national grid at the Glenbrook Steel Mill. But where will they travel across the estuary? and over whose farm land?

    Has resource consent been granted for the high tenion powerlines?


    Not point scoring, just want to know if a geothermal station was planned for your valley (leaving aside the feasability), would you object?

    Simple Yes or No

    to a theoretical question. Heck it is easy to no, as there will be a 0.00009% chance of building one there.

    Seeing you have the gas fired proposal in front of you, can you confirm that it is going to be a jet turbine powered station? And if it is where the steam emmsions will come from?

  14. Gerrit – you’re just trying to score points and ignoring that (most of the time!) we’re discussing a proposal for a new gas-burning baseload power station. Genesis went as far as the Environment Court to get consents for Awhitu. I have faith in the RMA process, and believe that with Genesis’s Rodney proposal the right decision will be made in the end.

    Geothermal isn’t a consideration for Kaukapakapa. If it ever is I’ll do the research, as I’ve done for the last year on Rodney, and get back to you.

  15. Gerrit said: That is not what the good people of Waiuku and Awhitu say, I guess the “official? vesrion for the dealy is the more PC one?

    Gerrit, I’m sure there are people in Waiuku and Awhitu who oppose the wind farm on a nimby basis. But their objections (with which I don’t agree – I actually think wind farms look and sound cool) were dismissed in the planning process and the consents granted. So unless Genesis fear vandalism (which I’m sure the good people of that locality would not engage in – I grew up there), I can’t see how nimbyism is stopping Genesis from proceeding.

  16. I actually believe in that (the collective consciousness and interaction of all living things, viewing the Earth as a single organism).

    Something we totally agree on. The next step, that all aspects of the organism are content with their role (e.g. grass actually likes being walked on for pleasure and eaten for nutrition,) and have long-term mechanisms for correction if undesirable actions take place in another part of the organism, may be more than we can agree on though. To me these two together are the essence of Gaia – to which the existence of ‘man’ is just a blip on the timeline so far.

    Mankind’s only great feat is the ability to adapt the environment to itself rather than the other way round. It is an interesting ‘experiment’ which has already brought about some interesting changes within the constraints of ‘scientific laws’. Where it will end up is unpredictable, but if it all goes wrong it won’t take more than 50,000 cycles or so to clear the decks again and start the next round.

  17. Sapient Says:
    ‘The Party for Rational and Effective Policy for Accheiving a Sustainable and Prosperous New Zealand’ ……PREPASPNZ,

    Sapient…I like it! The intention is good, anyhow.

    Energy policy planks would be:

    1) No new immigrants unless they contributed a $20,000 minimum “energy tax” which would be used for building ‘green’ energy sources (hydro, wind, tidal etc etc etc)

    2) No new gasfired power stations to be used for powering domestic use. Domestic users will be forced to live within their current (pun) energy means. (special tariffs over a certain kwh figure?) Industrial users will have priority/cheaper access to available energy.

    3) Increase geothermal availability and target it for industrial/commercial as per tariff controls mentioned above.

    4) Government incentives for development of the alternative energy design/build/install industry in NZ. (Export potential)

    Of course this means confronting the need for limited population growth, and also the need to NOT necessarily accept any/every business setting up here, just on the basis that “growth is good”.

    Those who believe in unrestrained growth have plenty of other countries to go and live/work in. The reason they want to live in NZ is because of the ‘lifestyle’

    Our lifestyle/environment will easily be lost if we let “growth” be our primary aim. It really only suits those in a strong position to clip the ticket and make a profit along the way.

    Windfarm in Kaukap? Yes, if it survives the RMA process. Gasfired station in Kaukap? No. It is just a short term fix that will cement us into needing another (dirtier) short term fix further down the road. (eg, coal).

    Unless Thorium reactors come to fruition we need to confront a change in energy use now.

  18. gee toad..

    ..you talk about me a lot..eh..?

    (and note all those positive/thumbs-up the righties give you..eh..?..)

    “..# toad (409) Add karma Subtract karma +11 Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Faifacts Media said: Well if an ex-Greenie like Shawn Tan can be number 10, then Phil U could be number 5.

    Maybe he is. Given the crap he’s posted on frogblog during his enforced absence here, it wouldn’t surprise me.

    He’s even called me a right winger because I said that the ACT Party, like the Green but unlike National or Labour, are actually principled rather than populist.

    So I’m now officially (according to Phil U) a right-winger.

    Does that mean I now get heaps of positive karma points from PhilBest & Murray? Or from John Boscawen – glad to see you are standing for a principled party John, even though I disagree with many of those principles. I hate being down at -11 karma or thereabouts on most of my posts here.

    Give a “right wing? toad a break, guys!..”

    (his has been a public service announcement..)


  19. toad,

    That is not what the good people of Waiuku and Awhitu say, I guess the “official” vesrion for the dealy is the more PC one?

    Notice that Kaukapakapa cant answer the simple question

    If geothermal was possible in her/his valley (after all geothermal is possible anywhere, just drill deep enough) would there be an objection?

    That is NIMBY.

  20. Toad – any plans Genesis have for the river may be irrelevant from today when the Rodney District Council and Genesis Energy will be signing a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’. According to the local paper, Genesis will commit to make a “significant contribution” to replacement of Helensville’s wastewater treatment plant. If they get approval, Genesis hope to pipe treated water from the wastewater treatment plant 8km away, instead of using water from the river. The power station discharges will be piped back to the Helensville plant (treated again we’d assume) and then discharged into the Kaipara River.

    In Kaukapakapa, each household looks after their own water and wastewater but Helensville is a ‘serviced town’ and desperately needs a new wastewater treatment plant. Because the council need Genesis’s $$ to build one, RDC are deemed to have a vested interest in the power station going ahead and independent commissioners will be hearing Genesis’s plan change and variation applications. And don’t get me started on how much money Genesis has already donated to various groups in Helensville.

    Great – Phil’s back.

  21. “..Also, for the record, Phil, I support decriminalising dak, and used to smoke it – I gave it away because I found it made me rather obsessive and paranoid [hint]!..”

    that ol’ ‘green’ passive-agression’..eh..?

    here is one for the reactionaries/scare-mongers..

    ..which will possibly explain to them how they are victims of a propaganda campaign..



  22. Kaukapakapa said: Genesis provided a field survey and residents questionnaire as evidence that the Kaukapakapa River is rarely used. Further investigation revealed the survey was carried out on a different river, and no-one within 20km of the Kaukapakapa River ever received the questionnaire.

    A different river!!! That’s outrageous. Has that been in the media? maybe I missed it, but it certainly deserves to be.

  23. Gerrit, the delays with the Awhitu wind farm have nothing to do with nimbyism. Genesis already have the consents to progress it. According to their website:

    The Awhitu Wind Farm project is currently on hold until market conditions improve. Genesis Energy has decided to defer construction of the wind farm to allow time to reassess the project’s economics. Currently the proposal to build the Awhitu Wind Farm is not commercially viable. The cost of importing and installing wind turbines has risen markedly in the past 12 months. Consents for the site have a life span of five years and Genesis Energy is working on a number of options to progress the development before the consents expire.

    In that context, I’m somewhat puzzled as to how Genesis are convinced that the Kaukapakapa thermal station is “commercially viable” when they (and we) have no idea where the gas to fire it will come from post-2015 or how much it will cost.

    BTW, Mighty River Power abandoned their consent applications to recommission Marsden B as a coal-fired station over a year ago – following a “review of the company’s potential generation developments and future market conditions.”

  24. Kaukapakapa

    So you would be happy if a geothermal power station with its attendant steam emmisions was built in you valley, being a renewable resource station?

    Irrespective if it was feasable or not?

  25. sapient – all I can say, re your opinion of Sue Bradford, is that you’ve developed a view that is wrong. I’d suggest that, if possible, you try again (to meet and speak with her – something non-controversial for starters 🙂
    p.s. I reckon I’m a good judge of character, if that adds any weight to my comments. Do you want to know what I think of Heather Roy, Bill English or Winston Peters, each of whom I’ve spent some time in conversation with 🙂

  26. Gerrit, how you can make assumptions about people based on three or four posts on a blog is beyond me. Yet you seem determined to write me off as a NIMBY. Have you even read any of those Transpower and Electricity Commission reports I provided links for? Or the submissions on the stoprodneypowerstation site?

    First and foremost my main objection to Genesis Energy’s proposed gas-fired power station is that it’s not needed for security of NZ’s electricity supply. End of story.

    That Genesis have also made a poor job in picking a site is something we’ll raise with the commissioners next month. If you read the submissions referred to above, you’ll see how poor Genesis’s preparatory work has been. For example,
    * their Assessment of Environmental Effects states that the huge DOC scientific reserve is “a few kilometres to the north, on the eastern edge of the Kaipara Harbour”. It’s 200 metres away.
    * Genesis provided a field survey and residents questionnaire as evidence that the Kaukapakapa River is rarely used. Further investigation revealed the survey was carried out on a different river, and no-one within 20km of the Kaukapakapa River ever received the questionnaire.

    Just to address some of your other claims:

    * the main transmission concern for Northland stems from the bottleneck across Akld. This is being addressed, with a decision from the EC due next month

    * other transmission upgrade/augmentation projects are already being carried out in the North Auckland and Northland area

    * if the existing 220kV double circuit line up north needs to be replaced with higher capacity lines, I assume they’ll use the existing pylon route through Kaukapakapa. Which I can see very clearly if I just sit up a little straighter at the computer and look out the window. I don’t have a problem with it – why do you assume otherwise?

    * generation projects proposed for our area include the 200MW Crest Energy tidal project, and a windfarm at Woodhill which is about 15km away

    * if an economic wind resource could be developed in Kaukapakapa, I’d prefer to see a windfarm built here. I’m also keen on having our own wind turbine in the backyard – we live in one of the windiest spots in the area.

    * Genesis Energy’s site is in a narrow river valley. Not suitable for a windfarm, solarfarm or geothermal unfortunately.

    Please do your homework before you write off valid concerns as just NIMBY-ism.

  27. Kevyn,

    And if Kaukapakapa (the place not the commentor) is the best place for a geothermal wind, solar, etc, power station, Kaukapakapa (the commentator, not the place) will, I’m sure, still be objecting.

    And herein lies the big problem, everyone want the electric power, but not in their back yard.

    Same as a wind farm on the Awhitu peninsula. Good place but not in someones back yard.

    To get electric power to Northland will need more high tension lines across Rodney somewhere or the firing up of Marsden B. Or the building of a geothermal, wind or solar station somewhere up North. Which of course is in someones back yard.

    Sometimes think that nothing will get built in New Zealand.

  28. Despite the hype the lower Waitaki isn’t the best remaining hydro site. In fact if Project Aqua had been given the go ahead Meridian would have been in the embarrasing position of having to delay the commissioning of the first power houses due to the fact that there currently isn’t enough water in the Waitaki or it’s feeder dams to comply with the resource consent conditions that Meridian sought for Project Aqua. The MSM have been strangely quiet about the fact that the McKenzie basin has received no rainfall this winter and all of these dams will remain at critical levels until the spring melt. That’s not a problem for the North Island but it does mean that the South Island would be blacked out if the Cook Strait cable fails for more than a few days. Global warming will make this situation an increasingly common occurence.

    I think you will find that people whose houses are on top of the best remaining hydro electric sites don’t share your attitude. I can understand their attachment to where they live, having lived in similar communities myself.

    I agree with Kaukapakapa “NZ should be concentrating on developing its geothermal resource (which is baseload and not dependent on the weather), followed by wave, tidal, wind and solar in that order.” Although I think rooftop pv/hvac co-generation is the unsung hero. Particularly as it works best with the thermal mass of externally insulated tiltslab construction and there are a lot of townhouses in Christchurch that correctly oriented to the sun to make it work with Christchurch power loads, ie heating demand on the frosty nights that follow sunny winter days. That is why the hvac waste heat recovery from the pv’s has such a dramatic impact on the economics of rooftop pv. There may be a similar case for the ac component in Auckland’s climate although I don’t know how well the heat/humidity corresponds with solar incidence there.

  29. Kevyn: If the house I live in was on top of the BEST remaining hydro electric site in the country I would gladly leave with appropriate compensation. However the house is not and the lower waitaki river is. The north bank tunnel concept would only generate at best 280mw, while the full project aqua could generate up to 530mw. I think it would be worth it.

  30. Valis,
    My experiance of bradford is somewhat limited, having only talked to her once and attended afew of her talks but my interpritation of her from those experiances, her press releases and the recorded speaches I have seen of her she has come over as very disagreable, that is, she has come over as irrational and unable to understand the consequences of the ideas she promotes and appears to have some sort of dilusions of granduer, always taking the side of those she sees as victims rather than looking at the circumstances. Yes it would be nice to have high wages, low unemployment, free education, large benifits and the whole package but the economic costs of the meathods she proposes only accheive those things in the very short term, they fail to, and even make worse, the situation of the disadvantaged in the long term.
    I do constantly critise Sue, and alot of that criticism is out of place, I know. I may not like her due to my perception of her meathods and interpritation of the world, but I do hold a large amount of respect for her and her ability to accheive that which she sets her eyes apon. She just happens to be the perfect idol for me to voice my concerns about the direction of the party and the individuals which drive that direction and as such falls south of my frequent outbursts of frustration over the damage this party is doing to the environment through not doing all it can to get the green vote. ‘We are all guilty of that which we fail to do’ or something along those lines.
    Also, Just because someone agrees with alot of what another person says does not make them the same, I happen to agree with alot of what BP, BB, Strings, etc say but, atleast in the first two cases, due to totaly different processes. I always find it shocking when I find out just how much further to the right I have sliped in my solutions to the problems of the left.
    Eco-Libertarian seems good to me, though Kea was my personal favorate, maybe just because I think the bird is wonderful.

  31. Thanks greenfly, well put and not at all unusual really. I wouldn’t pretend that Sue is not a formidable opponent if you’re on the opposite side, but know that the perception of her in the media is just not the whole story. I’ve been impressed that even in policy debates where Sue is the expert, she listens intently to you and bends over backwards to ensure all are heard. Actually a pleasure to deal with.

  32. greengeek, I don’t find your reasoning about who toad should support obvious at all. I would hardly call Labour anti-Rogernomics, even if they have repudiated the worst of it. They certainly haven’t rolled much of it back and New Zealand under Labour is still rated every year in the top 2-3 for economic freedom according to the US based Heritage Foundation. Calling them Socialist is frankly laughable. Does that help explain why toad is in the Green Party?

  33. I once had a conversation with Sue Bradford and I found her to be very kindly. And friendly and warm. Go figure (I said to myself afterwards)!

  34. Well, Sapient, I find the interesting thing in your exchange with toad is that while toad says toad agrees with Sue and Keith on nearly everything, you find toad very reasonable and environmentally focused, while Sue is a commie or worse and unfit for Parliament. Might there be a wee disconnect there? Perhaps its that you’ve conversed with toad and only know Sue through the media? I mean, if toad is so in sync with Sue, it would appear logical that Sue also largely agrees with toad, including on environmental issues, no? FYI, unlike some parties, the Green Caucus makes collective decisions. While it is true that individuals originally may come from different parts of the spectrum, one could not really be part of the Green Caucus if they weren’t on board with the vast majority of the kaupapa. I know for sure that Sue is.

    Eco-Libertarian has a nice ring, btw.

  35. ‘The Kea Party’ prehaps? beats the Kiwi anyday; inteligent, inquisitive, stunning and it can fly, the perfect thing to look up to, but then again the stupid, near blind and flightless Kiwi embodies the average NZ’er much better. lol.
    ‘The Party for Rational and Effective Policy for Accheiving a Sustainable and Prosperous New Zealand’ PREPASPNZ, doesint really have a ring to it.
    ‘The Viridian Greens’, has more of a ring to it, but not many would know what viridian is ment to mean.
    ‘The Party for a Green Future’ – hmmm
    ‘The Eco-Libertarian Party’
    … and im out of ideas

  36. toad Says: I believe we need to ensure the cost of that restructuring is borne by those who can best afford to pay it. Otherwise, we end up with Rogernomics Mk II, where the cost is borne by those who can least afford it. Sapient, I think the Greens have to address this issue, much as I see you (and Turnip and possibly Greengeek) would rather we ignore it.

    Toad, I actually probably feel much the same as you re Rogernomics, but what I don’t understand is why someone with your beliefs wouldn’t use one vote for Labour (ie anti-Rogernomics, pro socialist stuff etc) and be happy to use your other vote for a green party that was really focussed on green issues.

    Don’t Labour already cover the socialist stuff adequately?

    I see environmental/green issues as being common to many people who sympathise with Labour, yet also common to many who sympathise with National.

    Unfortunately those who lean toward National can’t give one of their votes to the green party for the reasons mentioned before.

    I don’t want to give my vote to National, I really want to use it to make a statement that we are not doing enough to plan a green future in NZ…we are starting to wind up into the old “growth” chestnut, that we need to forget about green stuff, so that we can earn enough money.

    Valis suggests I start another green party, but you guys have already pinched the name.

  37. Oh, my post is in moderation, I dont quite know what I said that got it caught in the filter.
    Toad, I have posted there, what I ment was that I was refraining from getting a publishing account, though I have now emailed g-blog to request one, shall be interesting to see the responce.

  38. toad,
    my meaning was that, atleast from your posts on frogblog, you seem to care about environmental issues genuinly and about social issues. You also appear to have the ability to hold a debate without storming off or dismissing the opponents as oppresors or rich pricks and you appear to accept reason. Bradford on the otherhand seems to care very much about social issues and seems to take delight at her position as profesional victim and see herself as some sort of ‘wonder woman’ while she gives little more than a nod of the head to environmental issues and to the accual economic effects of the things she proposes on the very people she purports to help. Additionally she seems to lack the ability to do any of the other things I have mentioned. She is unfit for parliment and belongs in the workers party along with those other individuals whom cannot see past the immediate consequences of thier actions.

  39. Sapient said: My talk of Alliance leftovers refers not to you, as I see you as being genuinly green, but to those such as Bradford and Locke…

    Well it probably does refer to me. Because I can immediately identify only one political issue that I disagree with either of them on.

    In Sue B’s case it is water fluoridation – she supports (in the supposed inrests of public health). I oppose, because I don’t believe the State should be mass-medicating people.

    In Keith’s case, I oppose his move to republicanism. Not in principle, because I think it is particularly silly to have a Head of State who lives on the other side of the world, but because of Tiriti issues, an the (at least perceived by Maori) need to redress those before we move to a republic.

  40. Author: Valis

    greengeek, we go around in this circle all the time as you point out. So why keep doing it? The Greens have never taken polls to set policy. There is a clear set of four principles that all policy is developed against. That you and others disagree with these principles is just not a good reason for chucking them. Go start your own party.
    I’d like to know how to apply the 4th Principle (Appropriate decision making ) in the light of this topic: a gas fired power staion at Kaukopakopa (lets assume the CO2 isn’t a problem and that we have plenty of gas)?

    Another situation (not answered) is the noise from Ruapuna Raceway versus Ruapunas nieghbours.

    People need to know clearly what the Greens are about.

    Take Eredwens post (she’s the expert):

    Author: eredwen
    It is interesting to see the current, dual theme insistence (coming from a small group of “those of the Right”) that:

    1. “The Greens are not a “true” Green party.”
    2. “The Greens need to give up their “socialist ideas”.

    For those who have made such uninformed comments, here is a bit of infromation:

    The “Values Party” (acknowledged as the first “Green party” in the World) started in Tasmania, (Australia).
    It was soon followed by the “Values Party” in AotearoaNZ … (hence our reputation for being the first COUNTRY in the World to have a “Green” Party.)

    That same movement, now called “the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand”, is now represented in Parliament, and in local bodies etc, thanks to the vision and hard work of its members (including the late Rod Donald, and some of the current MPs)

    I was an early member of the Values Party and later rejoined the “Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand”. Yes, I have been Green for about “thirty five years”.
    You are saying that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is not “a true Green Party”:

    1. What you see as “Socialism” (with a capital S) is the realisation that this Planet is finite, and the implications of that fact (for human behaviour and human society) is that the resourses of the Planet must be shared (and or conserved) by/with all the species that live here (including self named “Homo sapiens” who demonstrably does not always behave “wisely”!)

    “Cooperation for survival” NOT your “reds under the bed” connotations!

    (As people have found out before in times of crisis “you can’t eat money”.)

    See all comments on this post here:

  41. Um, Sapient, you have commented there already, and you are a GP member.

    So just email: g.blog and request publishing permissions.

    Be good to get some debate on this issue happening there.

  42. Lol, yea, didint expect the Gaia stuff from me?
    I dont have a g-blog publishing account as I know how tempting it would be for me to post controversal things, but then again that could be a good thing. Im just kinda worried that some of the studd on g-blog may be picked up by the media as green party views

  43. Um, Sapient, the Gaia stuff???

    I actually believe in that (the collective consiousness and interaction of all living things, viewing the Earth as a single organism).

    But I guess, as with religion, there are many different interpretations, so I’d rather not go there on this thread – would be far too much of a distraction. Maybe you might like to post something on that issue over at g.blog, where we can all author our own posts, rather than rely on frog to raise an issue. [BluePeter, that is the purpose of g.blog you questioned – to open up debate on things Greens may want to discuss but in which frog isn’t particularly interested at the moment in the context of an imminent election campaign].

    One thing I have to say Gaia has in its favour is that its adherents don’t war with and among each other over their beliefs, unlike Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus etc – Greens and Gaia are both respectful of the non-violence Charter Principle.

  44. lol, toad, I know, admittedly I accually reread that post and removed the “(ergh, New Labour)” comment I had after bradford and locke since I figured it was kinda out of place.
    Are you going to reply to the rest of that post? this thread is pretty well thread-jacked already.

  45. Actually, Sapient, Sue Bradford was never in the Alliance either.

    Much as I did, she detested the authoritarian approach of that Party’s leadership, and wasn’t involved with the Greens during the time they were in the Alliance because of that.

  46. Toad,
    My talk of Alliance leftovers refers not to you, as I see you as being genuinly green, but to those such as Bradford and Locke whom choose to push social issues, some of which with minimal social benifit or dire social and economic costs, which in doing so costs us as a party our ability to exert influence over the political process and affect change to the benifit of Gaia.
    I agree that there must be substantial economic and social changes implimented to ensure a prosperous and sustainable lifestyle and agree also that the costs of such restructuring must be borne by those whom are able to shoulder such costs, I do infact agree with a number of the social policies of the Greens and view alot of the environmental ones as not being strong enough. The difference comes in that I have a different moral basis, differnet goals and differnet interpritation of societies functioning than the bleeding hearts and as such with my less clouded eye I am able to read more fully into the effects of policy implimentation and see which policies will cause accual net benifit to Gaia and society and which will cause net costs and to what degree. That is why I often disagree on much policy on this forum because it is to influenced by morality and emotion and not enough by rationality and an accual interpritation of its effects.
    I do agree with increasing the median wage and I do agree with collective bargining and I do agree with high employment conditions and increasing the payments to genuine benificiaries, however the mechanisms I see as effective differ substatinaly from the blunt instruments proposed by the party, those blunt, reactionary and emotive instruments can only hurt the economy and society.
    I recognise that social issues can be green issues through roll on effects and that they can be mutualy dependant, as is often stated, but alot of the policy propose in the social areas does not acchieve what it sets out to accehive and does not help Gaia at all.
    I agree fundimentally with the Four Pillars, but my interpritation of how they are best acchived differs substantially from that of the greater membership as the greater membership cannot see past there nose and alot of the policy is litte more than stroking one intimate parts.
    I contribute heavily to the party at the ground level and at various posistions through the party, I do this because even if I disagree with the policy the party pushes in some or even most instances; my efforts also help to progress those few policies that truley will benifit Gaia and society.
    I would like to see a party dedicated to true green principles and if we loose the coming election I can see a fracture occuring that may well produce this, this, atleast to me, is highly desirable and would do much to benifit the environmental movement. Unfortunatly due to the laws of this country I am unable to form my own party and be represented, though following the election I may certainly try, along with afew others, to do so. A party based on solutions that will accually work and accually benifit Gaia and society.
    I detest labels but if I were to attempt to summarise my views by the light/dark/bright green distinctions I would fall strongly into the bright greens (it occurs to me that is a triple pun, lol).

  47. Phil u (apologies to those who are tired of this thread of discussion Valis, Toad …)
    I’ve no problem at all with the various shades of green, in fact each individual green I know has graduations within themselves – I’ve yet to meet a pure ‘dark’ or ‘light’ green.
    I’m curious to know where you place yourself on the continuim – whether you: use a compost toilet, divert your sink/bath/shower water into a raupo bed for nutrient capture, make charcoal to sequester carbon in the ground you live on, drink only water you’ve collected from your roof and so on. If you do all of these things (and more perhaps) you’ll be starting to sound like a dark/deep green. From what I’ve seen from you phil, I’m not so sure…

  48. Okay, I did my very best to prevent this thread being threadjacked by Phil, but he persisted so often that some of you took the bait.

    So I guess I’ll make some response. What I wrote on Kiwiblog was to the effect that ACT are, like the Greens, a party of principle.

    ACT (increasingly since the departure of Richard Prebble and Muriel Newman) have developed policies that are consistent with those principles. And like the Greens, but unlike Labour and National, ACT do not pander to public opinion or “hide” unpopular policies, but attempt to convince the public their policies are correct.

    I do agree with some of ACT’s principles (ie the social libertarian ones), but I do not agree with the economic libertarian ones. If we implement major economic restructuring, as we need to if we are to address the crises of climate change and peak oil, I believe we need to ensure the cost of that restructuring is borne by those who can best afford to pay it. Otherwise, we end up with Rogernomics Mk II, where the cost is borne by those who can least afford it. Sapient, I think the Greens have to address this issue, much as I see you (and Turnip and possibly Greengeek) would rather we ignore it.

    That is why I support policies like increasing the minimum wage, supporting collective bargaining for wages and employment conditions, and increasing core welfare benefits.

    These are presumably the issues that Greens like Sapient, Greengeek and Turnip disagree with me on, on the basis that they see them as “not Green issues”. But I believe if it’s all left to “the market” to address the economic consequences of dealing with the challenges of climate change and peak oil, it will be those least able to cope upon whom the cost falls, just as happened under Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson a generation ago.

    So is that “right wing” Phil?

    I despise your “I’m greener than you” holier than thou approach. I acknowledge veganism is the most sustainable lifestyle, but I do eat meat on occasion. Just as I might drink the occasional bottle of imported wine or take the occasional overseas holiday (as I’ve mentioned on another thread today). But I haven’t owned a car, and hardly ever driven one, for six years now. We each do our own bit to be Green, and should acknowledge and support each others’ efforts, rather than engage in “I’m greener than you are” put-downs.

    Also, for the record, Phil, I support decriminalising dak, and used to smoke it – I gave it away because I found it made me rather obsessive and paranoid [hint]! And despite my sometimes eating meat, none of battery chickens and eggs nor pigs farrowed in sow crates have passed my lips for many a year.

    Oh, and I was a foundation Green Party member (and a Values Party member before that) and have never been a member of the Alliance. Does that cover everything you want to have a go at me about?

  49. “As many commentors on frogblog have noted, the green party potentially has up to 20% of the vote…if only you could understand what these voters like and dislike.”

    greengeek, we go around in this circle all the time as you point out. So why keep doing it? The Greens have never taken polls to set policy. There is a clear set of four principles that all policy is developed against. That you and others disagree with these principles is just not a good reason for chucking them. Go start your own party.

    And Sapient, you don’t have to like what the Green Party stands for either, but to claim they can’t be trusted is disengenuous. The real problem for you is that the Greens *can* be trusted, but you just don’t like what we’re about.

  50. Insider – if you read through the Transpower proposal, you’ll see that even when they factored in deferral benefits of $31 million for Rodney, it still didn’t qualify as an alternative investment project.

    Sapient – which are the NIMBY clauses in the RMA?
    You might be interested in the final ‘Transmission to Enable Renewables’ report released by the Electricity Commission last month http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/opdev/transmis/renewables#final-report-on-the
    The Commission investigated NZ’s geothermal, wind and hydro potential. Apparently our geothermal resources have a potential energy equivalent to 3600 MW of electrical generation but the report then goes on to say that “taking into account likely environmental limitations, regulatory constraints and sustainability; approximately 1000 MW is left to be used for generating electricity.”

  51. greenfly..

    of course the green party/movement is made up of a kaleidoscope of colours..

    ..what’s your problem with acknowledging/identifying that..?

    ..the problem at the moment is that the light-green faction has a death-grip on the party..

    ..and what compounds hat problem..is that the wishes/desires for law reform in ..say..animal welfare/pot..etc.held by the ‘others..

    ..are ignored/disempowered..

    ..that disempowerment untill just recently accompanied by open derision of those ideas..

    ..(by the light greens..as they clustered around the burning flesh on the bbq..

    ..for example..(you know who you are..!…)

    ..just being labours’ b*tch is not the some total of ambition for many of us..

    ..and we are becoming somewhat irked..

    ..at being ignored for the last nine years or so..

    ..(seeing as you asked..eh..?..)


  52. I think you can trust ACT, just like how you can trust National to always bend to the interests of the busness lobby and Labour to always apease the unions and benificiaries.
    In fact the only party you cant really trust is the Greens cause you never know whos going to win, that is to say, you never know if a policy will accually be green or it will be the policy of the bleeding heart liberals and trade unionists that have so infested the party.

    I agree strongly with greengeeks 2:25 post.

    Also, the NIMBY clauses should be removed from the RMA and some loss of property value clauses added to replace them.

    We should be developing geothermal heavily for baseload, if we can hurry up and detirmine the extent of the feilds first that is. I personally wouldint mind using hot rock up in auckland, make the jaffas generate all their own electricity from it, watch as they destroy themselves with their own lust for power/electriity.

  53. phil u – splitting hairs aren’t you. If you fracture the green spectrum up too much you’ll leave it translucent and unable to push the lightest change. How about using your powers of persuasion to consolidate, encompass and build strength in the Green end of the political prism.

  54. “toad is in that carnivorous light green leftie/rightie group..”

    Well that clears things up immeasurably, thanks.

    Really, the only course here is to just ignore phil. Maybe he’ll get the message and go away.

    I’m starting now.

  55. “..I’ve never seen Toad take a right wing position on anything..”

    perhaps ..turnip..

    ..you don’t realise there is a light-green to dark-green spectrum..?

    ..light green being carnivorous/anti-pot reform/’don’t rock the boat’

    (and funnily enough..many of them are from the ‘leftist’/alliance-refugee part of the green party..

    go figure..(when ‘left’ becomes reactionary/’conservative’ ‘right’..)

    ..the current dominant faction..)

    ..the other end of the spectrum is dark green/vegan etc..etc..

    …those who realise the needed changes will not come about without a total rethink on/brace of changes to..diet..(as just one example..)

    ..i would say toad is in that carnivorous light green leftie/rightie group..


    ..and to a dark green..part of our (internal and extrnal) ‘problem..

    (and as you say you have never seen toad say/do anything rightie..

    ..how does his actis the party you can ‘trust’ assertion at (rightwing) kiwiblog..?

    ..will that ‘do’..?


  56. Kau

    Yep I was. The two combined cost the more than $1b I referred to. Rodney provides transmission alternative benefits that mvoes the need date for both.

  57. Frog…take note: there are countless voters waiting in the wings to vote against such policies as the Natonal Party has just rolled out re gas powered stations, but so many of us cannot bring ourselves to vote for the green party because of our difficulties with other green (non-green) party policies.

    As many commentors on frogblog have noted, the green party potentially has up to 20% of the vote…if only you could understand what these voters like and dislike.

    Given that the choice of National / Labour is largely up to the uninterested and/or polarised majority why not try to please the intelligent vote who are itching to vote green but can’t.

    Our electorate spread should really look something like this:

    National 35%
    Labour 35%
    Green 20%
    Christian 5%
    Libertarian and other 5%

    Who would hold the balance of power then??

    More green focus and less Sue B would keep me happy.

  58. Insider – I think you may be confusing the Whakamaru to Akld grid upgrade with the one I’m talking about which will secure a reliable supply for the area north of Auckland. The revised Transpower proposal for the latter is for $577m in 2013 dollars, and was presented to the Electricity Commission on 9 May for final approval. http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/opdev/transmis/gup/naan

    Gerrit – as I pointed out in my first post we already have massive pylons going through Kaukapakapa. Transpower’s main 220kV line north “marches through our valley” as you put it. That’s one of the reasons why Genesis wants to build the power station here.

    And in answer to your question, new gas-fired power stations shouldn’t be going in anyone’s backyard. NZ should be concentrating on developing its geothermal resource (which is baseload and not dependent on the weather), followed by wave, tidal, wind and solar in that order. If thermal plants are deemed necessary for security of supply, we should replace the Huntly coal-fired units with gas. Assuming we have the gas to run them.

    Our community has a right to take part in the RMA process and next month we’ll get an opportunity to stand in front of the commissioners and tell them what impact this power station will have on Kaukapakapa. Before you write us off as NIMBYs, read the submissions here http://www.stoprodneypowerstation.org/

  59. Look can someone send some more weed over to Phil I don’t like it when he comes down from his high as he starts posting insane things like Toad is right wing.

    I’ve never seen Toad take a right wing position on anything.

  60. frog

    yep sorry mmisread it. However, just cos it;s not there by name doesn’t mean it isn’t there in some form – there are a number of anonymous CCGT/peaker units in a range of the scenarios out beyond 2019.

    The SOO assumes no baseload additions for 10 years in all scenarios except to replace Huntly due to the moratorium. That does not mean it is not economic – it clearly was before the moratorium was sprung on the country. Genesis you have to assume weren’t planning to build a loss leader. Note the moratorium may never happen the way things are going on the ETS and the election, so the SOO assumptions may be irrelevant in a couple of months. Wonder why such a scenario wasn’t modelled?


    No the cost of the transmission upgrade is $824m in 2011 dollars. It clearly is not going to be built by then given various court processes and costs will likely rise. And it doesn’t have to be built by 2016. That is the whole point of the court cases – that local generation in Auckland could significantly change the need date.

  61. y’know..amongst those ‘greens’ who recoil in horror at the very idea of actually doing something significant..?

    ..especially if you should dare suggest they do anything about their flesh/fat/sinew eating addictions..

    ..they get as testy as a smack addict watching their junk walk out the door..

    ..and most are affronted in the extreme should you point out that their drug/addiction of choice..

    ..is very very ‘ungreen’..

    ..and that they are actually a large part of the problem..

    ..would that be you..?


    (and the surprising thing is..

    ..that so many of them ‘write like adults’..eh..?

    ..go figure..!..)

    ..anbd i do think it is significant that one such as toad..

    ..(purporting to be a ‘green spokesperson’..)..

    ..be shown in his true colours..

    ..as part of the anti-animal rights/anti-cannabis law reform..etc..etc..rightwing camp..

    ..and i must say..i have yet to hear their/any continued flesh-farming ‘solutions’..

    ..and that’s because they don’t have them/any..

    ..they just want to continue doing everything they do that fecks the planet over..

    ..and just to fiddle at the edges..


  62. y’know..amongst those ‘greens’ who recoil in horror at the very idea of actually doing something significant..?

    ..especially if you should dare suggest they do anything about their flesh/fat/sinew eating addictions..

    ..they get as testy as a smack addict watching their junk walk out the door..

    ..and most are affronted in the extreme should you point out that their drug/addiction of choice..

    ..is very very ‘ungreen’..

    ..and that they are actually a large part of the problem..

    ..would that be you..?


    (and the surprising thing is..

    ..that so many of them ‘write like adults’..eh..?

    ..go figure..!..)

    ..anbd i do think it is significant that one such as toad..

    ..(purporting to be a ‘green spokesperson’..)..

    ..be shown in his true colours..

    ..as part of the anti-animal rights/anti-cannabis law reform..etc..etc..rightwing camp..

    ..and i must say..i have yet to hear their/any continued flesh-farming ‘solutions’..

    ..and that’s because they don’t have them/any..

    ..they just want to continue doing everything they do that f*cks the planet over..

    ..and just to fiddle at the edges..


  63. “..But I do know that toad is generally a voice of reason in any discussion..”

    ..are you outing yourself as being in that same rightwing/reactionary space..?

    ..as toad..?



  64. A gas power station isn’t affected by peak oil directly. We know that natural gas is a finite resource, but we have no idea how much gas we have left, because you cant model gas depletion in the same way as oil.

    So…. as long as the price of gas isn’t underwritten by the government I have no problem with people building gas powered generation. It is the least obnoxious of the fossil fuel fired plants.

    I’d rather a gas fired power plant was built in the middle of somewhere so that their waste heat can be made use of, rather than in the middle of nowhere, so it just gets to heat up rivers.

    And I’d really rather that gas was used to heat homes directly rather than be converted to electricity first, as the efficiency is much higher.

    Having said all that, I think it is lunacy the price of LPG in the household sized cylinders; its more exopensive than electricity per KWh…

  65. Kaukapakapa,

    Still sounds like a NIMBY scenario.

    But hey, when the the high tension powerlines came marchng through your valley, you will still be objecting, yes?

    The best alternative would be to build (convert?) Marsden B to woodchip fired, That way you will not need those high tension lines running through your valley.

    I still dont know where the steam comes from, in a gas fired station. Neither Southdown or Otahuhu have steam SEEN to be escaping into the atmosphere.

    I acknowledge that the jet exhaust (that is presuming the Rodney station is going to use jet turbines to run the generators) will output emmisions. but with scrubbers that should be controlable.

    So if the staion is not going in your back yard, Kaukapakapa, in whose shall it go? While Otahuhu might be a good site, the upgrade of high tension lins through your valley may wel still occur. Not to mention the residents of the Seaside suburb along the estuary may well object (but being in a lower decile economic position) but will no doubt be told to likeit or lump it.

    As one who detest these steel legged bohemouths, I sympathise with you next fight to preserve your valley.

    But to get electricity up North, the options are for a Marsden B ugrade or high tension lines through Rodney (either in your back yard or someone elses).

  66. Insider – sorry, but Frog did say that Rodney was included in the draft SOO but only in the ‘High Gas Discovery’ scenario. It’s not mentioned at all in the other four scenarios. The table 19 you refer to also only refers to Rodney proceeding in a HGD scenario. Basically, this generation project is only considered feasible if we discover another Maui field.

    I did take the recent upgrading of gas reserves (Pohokura) into account when I calculated that we had 12 years of reserves left.

    And the transmission upgrade for Nth Auckland and Northland is estimated by Transpower to cost $577 million – and has to be completed by 2016, whether or not the Rodney plant is built.

    Owen & Gerrit – I’m no expert on the RMA. You need to see the site to get an idea of how inappropriate such a development is for this area.

    Helensville may be designated for growth but the outer limits are clearly defined and extend to the north and west (in the opposite direction to the power station). Helensville has a significant industrial zoned area that has yet to be developed, the town is 8km away from the power station site, and the council provides water and wastewater services. Because of the topography Helensville residents will only be able to see steam plumes from the power station, if that.

    Unlike residents in Kaukapakapa. We’re in the same valley as the power station site and the village and school are a couple of kilometres downwind. A number of farms and lifestyle blocks lie between the village and the site, and we all collect our drinking water from the roofs of our homes.

    What’s the point of having structure plans, and different zones in a district/regional plan, protected areas, and rules about where you can site industrial developments (like Rosebank Rd) then? Rodney’s proposed district plan is pretty clear on the objectives of a ‘general rural’ zone, which is what the proposed power station will be surrounded by if it goes ahead:

    1. To ensure that natural resources, rather than built forms, dominate the rural character and amenity values of the General Rural Zone

    2. To ensure the protection and enhancement of native biodiversity, natural landscape qualities and significant natural areas can occur.

    3. To avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects arising from conflict between residential and non- residential land use activities.

    4. To enable the productive use of the rural land resource where this can occur while avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of such land use on the natural and physical resources existing within the zone.

    Contact Energy already has resource consents for a 400MW gas-fired power station next to its existing Otahuhu A & B plants. The private generator shelved the project saying it’s “uneconomic” to build because of increasing gas prices and an insecure supply of gas. Contact are now putting billions into renewables instead. Admittedly they also have a 200MW gas-fired peaking plant due to begin operation in 2010 but obviously that plant’s location near gas fields and a new gas storage facility were factors when the company decided if it was a viable project.

    Genesis went to the Env. Court to get resource consents for their Awhitu windfarm and then put it on hold. The SOE lost millions of dollars recently when they abandoned an offshore gas exploration well and a week later we read reports that they’ve bought a 50% stake in a coal research company (so much for mothballing Huntly). Electricity generated from gas-fired plants is only going to cost consumers more when you factor in the ever-increasing price of gas, and carbon charges on top of that. Contact’s making good business decisions for their shareholders. The same can’t be said for state-owned generator Genesis.

  67. insider – I never said it was not in the SoO or that it was not in the High Gas Discovery Scenario. In fact I said that it was in both of those. Neither did I say that we were going to run out of gas. I said that if built, Rodney would create a gas deficit based on current projections, hence it should not be built. Please don’t read such nonsense into what I have written!

  68. Firstly it is rubbish to say Rodney is not in the draft SOO. It is in the list of prospective projects in appendix 6 as a possibility for 2015. And take a look at table 19 if you think it is not in the high gas scenario. It specifically says gas is feasible even at $40/t carbon cost.

    Secondly, it would resolve a number of security issues for Auckland and Northland far cheaper than current transmission projects which will cost over $1billion. Saving $500m is something that deserves serious consideration.

    Thirdly, gas reserves are regularly being uprated. Maui has been significantly upgraded since the 2003 reassessment. Others have been as well. That is nothing unusual globally, and is probably more reliable than those constantly saying we are about to run out.

  69. Kaukapakapa
    Please note, there is no such thing as productive land.
    Land is only productive when people use it to produce something of value.
    People confuse productive with fertile. But if you use fertile land to grow truffles it will not produce anything of value. And olives on fertile land just produce lots of olive wood.
    So if a gas fired power station is put on that land and produces electricity at a competitive price then the land is being used productively.
    Just as land is used productively if it houses people. Housing is a vital part of our infrastructure as the occupants of any city devastated by an earthquake.

  70. kahikatea,

    I think you would need to run the tunnel all the way to the channel at the Mangere Wharf.

    Theoretically the wash from the Waitemate would clear the tunnel exist for the reverse flow.

    I think silting will be a problem, but if you did not run the flow through the tunnel 1 hour either side of the tides being even it should be OK.

    There is a three metre drop beween the respective harbours low and high tides.

    Only choose Otahuhu as it is the shortest distance between the two harbours.

    There might be better alternatives with a longer tunnel. Say the middle of the Tamaki Straight opposite Beachlands through to the deep channel by the airport and LPG terminal.

    We could do with a few more snapper in the Manukau!

  71. phil

    your obnoxious style does more to undermine people’s regard for the ’cause’. without a link I don’t really know what the context of the comment you’re talking about is but I do know that toad is generally a voice of reason in any discussion. nothing I’ve read from him strikes me as particularly right wing.

    and unlike you he writes like an adult. eh?

  72. # Gerrit Says:
    August 20th, 2008 at 9:57 am

    > It is the perfect location for the tidal power station in the tunnel between the Waitemate and Manukau Harbours.

    Sounds like a promising idea – there’s a remarkably big difference in tide times between the two harbours. But I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) that the Manukau harbour is very shallow. You’d have to do a lot of dredging first, otherwise the current would wash Manukau silt into the the turbines and clog it up.

  73. oops, my geography is wayward.

    Otahuhu is on the banks on the Waitemata. not Manukau.

    It is the perfect location for the tidal power station in the tunnel between the Waitemate and Manukau Harbours.

  74. Re the gas-fired power station at Kaukapakapa …. there are already two renewable energy projects proposed in the area … the Crest Energy proposal for a tidal turbine project at Kaipara Heads that (if trialled successfully) will eventually have a 300MW capacity, and a large wind-farm proposal on North Head that is still in the planning stages.

    All this talk of security of supply by the Nats, but
    I’d like to know why is a gas-fired power station considered “uneconomic? for a private company such as Contact Energy, to build, (eg. the 400MW mothballed power station at Otahuhu), but is still considered “economic? by state-owned generator Genesis Energy, (eg. the proposed 480MW at Kaukapakapa) ?

    Does it depend on whether or not taxpayers own it ?

    Under the State Owned Enterprise Act, Genesis is “required to be as profitable and efficient as comparable private sector businesses”.

    The proposed Rodney Power Station will cost about $500 million, and will likely be under-utilised as the cost of gas continues to rise and more renewable baseload geothermal generation comes on stream.

    We want security of supply in the North, NOT surplus generation.

    Security of supply will be addressed largely by Transpower’s proposed grid upgrade for North Auckland and Northland. The Electricity Commission is due to decide on funding for this next month and Crest Energy’s tidal generation proposal in the Kaipara Harbour is due for decision soon.

    So options for security of supply north of Auckland already exist and security of supply for the rest of the country is more than met by the other 1300MW+ of new generation due to come on stream by 2012.

    The RPS at Kaukapakapa will end up being a tax-payer owned white elephant, not only because gas will be scarce locally and expensive to import, but also because it just won’t be needed.

  75. Kaukapakapa,

    I’m suprised at the water discharge rates as I did not think that a gas fired station (being nothing more then a jet engine and a generator) would generate that amount of waste water. But I take your word for it. Reason for thinking the waste water for a gas fired station is low in that both Otahuhu and Southdown are near the Manukau estuary and I doubt if they would use salt water for station cooling. But I could be wrong on that score.

    Irrespective of where you would place a power station there are gong to be objections from locals.

    Mind you if you place it in industrial RosebankRoad area, the residnets at Kaukapakapa would object to high tension powerlines coming through their properties to service the growth expected at Helensville and points North + South.

    I notice you say “smack bang in the middle of productive farmland currently zoned ‘general rural’”

    Well maybe we should sacrifice “productive industrial land” instead? And should the owners, residents of those area’s object, where would you place it?


    I’m not for a gas powered station, I think it is a short term solution. However lets seperate the objections beween type and location.

  76. Phil, your post has absolutely nothing to do with power stations, or energy generally, which is the topic of this thread.

    I don’t respond to threadjacks. Post it on an even vaguely relevant thread, like this one perhaps, and I might.

  77. toad..what are you doing writing at kiwiblog..

    ..that if you want a party you can trust’..

    ..that party is act..?

    ..are you in ‘deep cover’..?

    ..just moving in green circles to ‘white-ant’/undermine what you can..?

    ..and if not..

    ..you are certainly posting your credentials of being at the extreme rightwing end of the quilt that is the green party..


    ..so.. everyone reading your words should take your ideological positioning into account..

    ..when evaluating those words..

    ..eh toad..?


  78. It has always struck me that New Zealand has wasted its gas resources. I remember when I was a kid of only 7 or 8 seeing reticulated gas being installed to a new housing area in Auckland, and asking why people would waste gas on cooking and water heating when electricity did a perfectly good job (back then, I was unaware some electricity was generated by burning coal).

    Would it not have been better for New Zealand to use its gas solely for powering CNG vehicles? Converting it to methanol and then making synthetic petrol was another wasteful thing to do.

  79. BluePeter – from the link you provided:

    For instance the Minister of Energy said in April 2004 “There’s no doubt that New Zealand has plenty of gas – we just have to drill enough holes to find it in economic quantities and locations, and attract the capital necessary to develop the fields.? [Duurh!]

    There is considerable optimism about a number of drilling projects. However, until the reserves are proven, such prospects cannot be relied upon.

    Isn’t that my point? The great unknown is the cost of finding it and extracting it. So we build a gas-fired power station with no idea of what it will cost to run it.

    Remember Marsden B – never used since completion in 1978!

  80. BluePeter – if domestic gas supplies are assured, why are Genesis and Contact applying for resource consents to build an LNG terminal in New Plymouth?

    Of course GANZ will be reassuring everyone that there’s plenty of gas. But I’d say the figures in MED’s Energy Data File are more reliable seeing they don’t have a vested interest. From the data the Ministry released in June, I calculate that we have 12 years of domestic gas reserves left at current consumption levels. Build more gas-fired power stations and those reserves will run out even sooner.

    And if you’re relying on a big discovery down south, bear in mind that the exploration companies will want the best price they can get for any new gas found so chances are it will be sold off overseas. The infrastructure isn’t in place to pipe gas from one end of the country to the other.

  81. Gerrit – maybe you should read our submissions first before dismissing Kaukapakapa residents as NIMBYs (by the way, I personally love windfarms and we already have massive pylons going through Kaukapakapa).

    Genesis Energy’s 48 hectare site is:
    1. smack bang in the middle of productive farmland currently zoned ‘general rural’
    2. right beside a 210ha DOC scientific reserve
    3. right beside approx. 400ha that the regional council has designated an ‘Outstanding Natural Landscape’
    4. right beside approx. 200ha that the district council has designated a ‘Significant Natural Area’
    5. runs alongside the Kaukapakapa River, from which Genesis want to extract 2,400 cubic metres of water and discharge 1,900 cubic metres of contaminated water back into it each day. At a proposed temperature of up to 36.9 degrees. The River is also protected under the District Plan.
    6. will have a 15,000m2 substation built alongside the main building, a wastewater detention pond, and a number of ancillary buildings.

    Southdown and Otahuhu’s physical footprint may not look large or obtrusive to you but bear in mind that they’re sited in what are already industrial zones. Building a large industrial development in rural Kaukapakapa – outside of the Metropolitan Urban Limits – is totally inappropriate.

    Thanks for the support Toad! There’s still hope for Gerry Brownlee though. The main North Auckland rail line passes right through the middle of Genesis’s site and a designated rail siding is already in place. The SOE wants to re-zone the area for “electricity generation” but their proposed zoning rules don’t specify what type of generation. If they get the go-ahead, a coal-fired plant could still be on the cards.

  82. Gerrit, I think the Greens would oppose building a gas-fired power station anywhere. It’s just plain dumb, both in the context of carbon emissions and economically. What will Genesis do when the price of gas becomes too expensive for it to be economically viable? Oh, convert it to run on coal, I suppose.

    And if we must have a gas gired power station anywhere, this is a particularly poor location. Genesis want to discharge up to 1,900 m3 of contaminated and heated water into the Kaukapakapa River – a protected inland waterway – each day.

  83. I think there are two issues here.

    1. The residents dont want a gas fired station, in fact they dont want any kind of power station. The fact that it is gas fired seems immaterial. Put a wind/solar farm proposal before them and they wuld still object.

    2. The issue of a gas fired station rather then one powered by renewable resources (wood chips anyone?).

    The Greens are against the gas fired concept not the location, correct?

    If so I would expect the Greens to propose alternative power source for this electric generation location.

    Having seen the gas fired stations at Southdown and Otahuhu, I dont think their footprint (physical not carbon) is neither very large nor obtrusive. There are no large chimneys, buildings or cooling towers.

    No more so then say a saw mill or any other manufacturing facility of similar size.

    I guess the residents of Kaukapakapa would rather the residents of the Waikato had ugly power pylons to look at, to bring power to the Auckland istmus.

  84. that Draft Statement of Opportunities is quite interesting, particularly for its scenario assumptions. A key one of which is that a bunch of wind power which is currently consented or seeking consent won’t be built for 20 – 25 years…

  85. Go for it, Kaukapakapa! And please let us Greens in Auckland know what we can do to support you.

    Yep, it is John Key’s electorate, but the Nats are completely into unsustainable gas-fired electricity, so no joy there.

    Gerry (Sexy Coal) Brownlee will be disappointed though – if he’d had his way it could have been fired by the dirty black/brown stuff. Fortunately, it’s too difficult to ship it through the Kaipara Heads.

    As for the gas to fire it, well, our Maui production has almost run out, so where will it be coming from, and at what transportation cost?

Comments are closed.