Energy and fuel
This page is for discussion of energy supply, electricity generation, fuel sources and related matters not covered by other threads.
Climate Conversation Group
Taking the heat out of global warming
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.
Latest climate models v. reality
As the models continue to leave actual temperature readings in their dust, sizeable warming halted about 1995 — although it might resume at any time. It must hasten to have any hope of catching up with the predictions.
If you claim warming continues, we want evidence of continued warming — eminently reasonable. Making us wait for 17 years for that evidence invites us to doubt you.
Claiming that warming hasn't stopped is the same as claiming it has — and both are ridiculous, for nobody knows the future. The best you can do is describe the past.
Click graph for larger version.
What’s the biggest subsidy of all? Free backup”
Richard
The link (Daily Telegraph) below indicates to me the inevitable direction that all this leads to as I see things going
[This is debatable too. When a wind generator cannot supply, it represents an opportunity cost to them but it's an opportunity for another generator to supply (and probably at higher price) i.e. it's a market
The problems will start if coal say is wound down while wind is ramped up and if as in Britain there is a major failure of wind to supply, there may not be another generator waiting to supply and if there is they can't supply instantly anyway. This is looking like a realistic scenario IMO if coal opposition continues]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8770937/Wind-farm-paid-1.2-million-to-produce-no-electricity.html
I don’t think the British wholesale electricity setup is applicable to the NZ market structure, there’s not the same subsidy incentives (subsidy farming) in NZ. And I’m sure there’s no ‘constraint payments’ being made (or will have to be made in the future but it’s an interesting thought.
In regard to connecting generation to the national grid, remember that the “line charge” component of your power bill pays for transmission (Transpower) and distribution (e.g. Powerco) line costs (i.e. it’s a toll for energy transport).
Wind farm paid £1.2 million to produce no electricity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8770937/Wind-farm-paid-1.2-million-to-produce-no-electricity.html
And this from the home of reason and democracy. Unbelievable.
This is from the country that joined the EU. In its early stages, this was the Common Agricultural Policy, which paid farmers to destroy food. (Butter mountains, wine lakes etc)
This is what happens when state interventionism and subsidies create skewed markets.
LFTR in 5 minutes – Thorium 2011 remix
http://atomicinsights.com/2011/10/lftr-in-five-minutes-is-thorium-better-than-a-silver-bullet-energy-solution.html
Interesting first 5 minutes of this video gives a good overview of Thorium power.
It is so abundant, one guys mine in the US can provide enough Thorium to power the entire world for one year.
Stay for 6 minutes and you get to see the true agenda of the greens – limiting growth.
Britain’s Mark Lynas Riles
His Green Movement Allies
Activist Mark Lynas has alienated his green colleagues by renouncing long-held views and becoming an advocate for nuclear power and genetically modified crops. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he explains why he rethought his positions and turned to technology for solutions.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/britains_mark_lynas_riles_his_green_movement_allies/2449/
LCES China low carbon energy conference
http://www.lcesummit.com/
A SUPER-SCALE AND SPLENDID CONFERENCE ON LOW CARBON ECONOMY IN CHINA, 2011!
Flibe Energy (the Thorium guys) did a presentation here
http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/10/21/lces-2011/
Naturally, they pushed the “climate change” angle, as that was the target audience.
China is probably the number one prospect for development of Thorium energy
Germany’s Energy Transition
Der Speigel asks whether Germany’s ambitious energy transition is going according to plan. From the graph above, which is for Bavaria, it looks like Germany had better stock up on carbon offsets, because something looks to give and I suspect that it won’t be the lights going out.
Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 10/27/2011 01:08:00 PM
>>>>>>>>> [See links]
http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-213019-galleryV9-jlhh.jpg
I’ve always thought that the NI NZ gas pipeline network is extremely vulnerable and recent events have confirmed my suspicions.
As a researcher for an electricity utility in the late 80s I witnessed the changeover from coal fired boilers to gas fired boilers, dairy factories were massive coal users – more Joules in total for Waikato factories than say electricity for a city the size of Hamilton and the NZ Dairy Coop (Fonterra) had their own coalmines. Part of my function was to try to capture some of the market for electric hot water systems (e.g. private hospitals) because often it is only hot water that is required for some functions, not steam.
I had an uneasy feeling seeing the reliance being placed on gas because I had seen the Kapuni pipeline being laid though the farms next to where I was brought up and having since been involved in earthworks and construction for large projects, I have seen how things go wrong e.g. Ruahihi and Wheo hydro canals.
Smart that some Auckland restaurants had a back up plan but when coal is replaced in industrial facilities where steam is raised without the ability to revert necessitates the use of diesel as a short term measure only but coal is the only viable long-term alternative.
An earthquake of Canterbury proportions between Auckland and New Plymouth doesn’t bare thinking about if one small leak shuts down Auckland industry for a week. I think some risk managers will be revising mitigation strategies as a result of the shutdown. Lion would have been OK except that their alternative brewery was in Christchurch – dang!
The NZ industry sector heat plant breakdown is here:-
Heat Plant in New Zealand
http://www.bioenergy.org.nz/documents/publications/HeatPlant/HeatingPlantDatabase2008.pdf
Obviously NZ heat plant runs on fossil fuels for which there is no substitute (no wind turbines powering heat plant of any substance).
Fonterra NI factories are now all gas except Te Awamutu (coal/gas) and Puhoi (lignite). Te Awamutu has 53 MW capacity to raise superheated steam with coal, only Whareroa betters that with gas. Te Rapa, that was coal supplied by a Dairy Coop coal mine, is now gas except that Contact Energy now generates electricity on-site with 4x the capacity that Fonterra has. I did foresee this in the 80s and reported it to my mgt thinking Fonterra might enter the electricity generation/retail business after deregulation (and therefore become a major player in the Waikato and a competitor) but obviously that was not Fonterra’s core business and they instead farmed out the Te Rapa capacity to Contact who became the competitor:-
Te Rapa Co-generation
http://www.beca.com/projects/power/power_generation/te_rapa_co_generation.aspx
Which BTW leads to complications re “co-generator status”, is it permanent or seasonal? See: Contact’s “Submission to Electricity Commission on Review of Offer and Dispatch Rules for Co-generation Plant” [link too long]. That was 2006 so probably been resolved by now.
And check out Primary Schools (coal mostly) vs Secondary Schools (gas mostly) on page 11.
Ironically, Lion’s Christchurch brewery boilers were fired by coal (page 58) but that plant is to be demolished and instead they will build a $15 million warehouse and distribution centre
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/lion-nathan-christchurch-brewery-be-demolished-nn-94156
All other SI breweries are fired by coal except McCashins that the report states is LPG/Butane. I’m sure that is incorrect because in 2009 McCashins got a resource consent to use an already on-site coal-fired boiler (perhaps it was not being used), maybe they now have both LPG/Butane and coal:-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/3030646/Green-light-for-McCashin-brewery
My favourite brew is Black Mac along with Cascade Premium Lager. Cascade (being in Greenie Tasmania) switched from oil and coal to gas in 2010 and now trumpets its “improved greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency performance”:-
http://www.cascadebreweryco.com.au/#/brewery/environment
Black Mac is batch brewed around NZ by Lion who have owned the Mac brewing rights since 1999. Mac’s beer supplies were hit by the Christchurch quake along with Guinness and Becks:-
http://www.foodnews.co.nz/17995/mac%E2%80%99s-beer-supplies-hit-by-christchurch-quake/
Monteith’s have their own versions of Black Mac and Cascade Premium Lager that I find a bit ordinary (can’t be the Greymouth coal surely) but their coal fired boilers are a tourist attraction apparently so who am I to criticize?
Well, enough of reporting the energy inputs to beer brewing (even as important as it is). I’m off to wash my car – that should work up a thirst.
Oops, this is way off:-
“Obviously NZ heat plant runs on fossil fuels for which there is no substitute”
The wood processing sector (Figure 6.2 page 5) say otherwise. Their wood-waste and black liquor energy use is about the same as gas and coal in dairy processing.
Black liquor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liquor
Black liquor — fuel of the future? http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Education/Research/Reading/Black-liquor—fuel-of-the-future/
Checked out beer bottle manufacturing. All gas fired furnaces in NZ boosted by electricity when necessary according to this NZIC report:-
http://nzic.org.nz/ChemProcesses/inorganic/9A.pdf
O-I New Zealand (formerly known as ACI Glass Packaging), based in Penrose, Auckland, is the only manufacturer of glass bottles and jars in New Zealand apparently. Their two furnaces are capable of producing 210 and 250 tonnes of glass per day. Firing is by natural gas.
http://www.recycleglass.co.nz/about.htm
Haven’t heard in the news whether that plant has shut down, I presume so.
Phenomenal amount of new glass making capacity in China almost all gas fired. The following page shows Chongqing Life Furnace Technical Engineering Co., Ltd’s recent design and construction including one 101m2 coal fired furnace:-
http://www.cqlaifu.com/en/project_3.html
Compare all that new glass furnace capacity in China from just one furnace supplier to O-I’s two NZ furnaces, one 65m2 and the other 81m2.
No bread at my Countdown Supermarket tonight either thanks to a lack of gas – I got the last loaf,
Sure enough, an awakening among the Food & Grocery Council’s members:-
Amazing. They looked at every type of disaster except the one that stops production dead.
I would have thought that the first question those risk managers asked their colleagues would be: what will we do if our gas supply is disrupted?
At least now they have the answer, even though they didn’t ask the question.
Seen at “The Daily Bayonet – Skewering the Clueless Since 2006″
http://dailybayonet.com/?p=9181
Not entirely out of the realms of possibility given Spain produces solar energy at night
Seen at JoNova
4 Jan: Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Georgia ethanol plant sold, at taxpayers’ loss
The failed Range Fuels wood-to-ethanol factory in southeastern Georgia that sucked up $65 million in federal and state tax dollars was sold Tuesday for pennies on the dollar to another bio-fuel maker with equally grand plans to transform the alternative energy world.
LanzaTech, a New Zealand-based biofuel company, paid $5.1 million for the plant in Soperton. Its main financial backer: Vinod Khosla, a California entrepreneur who also bankrolled Range Fuels, and helped secure its government loans, before Range went bust last year.
LanzaTech hasn’t received the same type of loans, but the company has received $7 million from the U.S. departments of Energy and Transportation to assist in the development of alternative fuels…
The Bush administration’s Energy Department steered a $76 million federal grant to Range. The Department of Agriculture followed up with an $80 million loan guarantee. Georgia officials pledged $6.2 million. Treutlen County, one of the state’s poorest, offered 20 years worth of tax abatements and 97 acres in its industrial park.
Private investors reportedly put up $158 million. In all, the project raised more than $320 million.
Range, unable to turn wood into ethanol, closed its doors a year ago. It never came close to creating the 70 jobs once promised…
Jeb Simons, an engineer in Savannah whose family hails from Soperton, doesn’t expect much of the taxpayer investment to be recouped. He blames Khosla.
“He takes government money, builds the place and takes the money and runs,” said Simons, ” . . . and now he’s double-dipping on government funds for round two. That’s taxpayer money that could go toward schools or hospitals or be given back to taxpayers.”
Khosla, who made his billions as a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has invested heavily in alternative energies, cellulosic ethanol in particular. Khosla is listed as “a key investor” in LanzaTech and sits on the board of directors, according to the New Zealand company’s website. A call to Khosla Ventures was not returned Wednesday…
http://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-ethanol-plant-sold-1289567.html
This down-thread:-
Rereke Whakaaro
January 6, 2012 at 11:26 am · Reply
It is interesting that although LanzaTech is registered in New Zealand, 5.1 million of the 7.7 million shares in LanzaTech are owned by Mr Khosla, through one channel or another.
Only 1.8 million shares are actually owned by New Zealand residents.
I also note with interest that 670 thousand shares are registered to holding companies in the Cayman Islands – always an eyebrow raiser.
And the U.S. departments of Energy and Transportation have jointly given the company US$7m … Hmm?
What a story! MSM – are you listening?
Don’t think Rereke’s quite right here, Lanzatech got $3m of a total $7m from US DoT i.e. $4m went to other companies.
Range Fuels biorefinery is now “Freedom Pines Biorefinery” and Lanzatech’s “first production facility in the United States” (not producing yet):-
It will be interesting to see how economically efficient full-scale production is. Basically they “plan to leverage” the massive sunk subsidies (and any others they can get their hands on) of Range Fuels so site updates will be worth looking at.
They’re also masters of spin:-
I can’t find at the company website, any details of their “first demonstration facility, producing over 100,000 gallons of ethanol per year……operational in 2011″ (despite all the awards and press releases) – that has apparently been re-scheduled for 2H 2012
From what I can gather, the “demonstration facility” and the “full scale commercial facility” will be one and the same – Freedom Pines Biorefinery.
That will be the reality check that Lanzatech can deliver on its contracts to the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), through the Department of Transportation’s John A. Volpe Center, to “accelerate commercial availability of the next generation of alternative aviation fuel” and to Virgin Atlantic for development of a “world first low carbon aviation fuel with just half the carbon footprint of the standard fossil fuel alternative”.
Their initial investment “to build the plant” in the US instead of NZ in the following feasibility study should now be considerably less than NZ$170m [US$133m] but meantime US ethanol subsidies have been removed.
So at US$2.13 breakeven, where does Lanzatech stand in the US ethanol market?:-
Obviously economically unviable on an on-going operational basis and there’s no advantage to be had from minimal initial investment at Freedom Pines Biorefinery (much less than US$133m) that I can see.
That’s if they are producing fuel ethanol but how it works out for alternative aviation fuel is anyone’s guess.
An article here from the Guardian claiming that “Subsidies on tradition fuels far exceed alternative energies”. Another example of a propoganda headline bearing no relation to the content.
From the article:
“Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010. All renewables in the UK benefited from £1.4bn over the same period, according to data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).”
“Almost 90% of the fossil fuel subsidy comes from the reduced rate of VAT paid by households.” and
“Green electricity benefits from the [same] price cut delivered by the reduced VAT rate but ..no data is available on the sum”
Nice bit of creative accounting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels?newsfeed=true
I wasn’t aware of a reduced rate of VAT for fossil fuels. If this is the case, then it is just a reduced tax take for the government. I fail to see how it is subsidising the fossil fuel industry.
I also fail to see how wind will “reduce energy volatility”.
HOW ELECTRIC CARS WORK
http://i.imgur.com/ERRWp.jpg
Windflow brushes off nuclear concern
Windflow Technology’s boss is batting away any unease about his company’s hook up with a United States giant which makes nuclear submarines, saying it is like turning military weapons to peacetime products.
This week the small, struggling Christchurch turbine manufacturer disclosed a 10-year licensing agreement with General Dynamics SATCOM, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, which manufactures weapons, military vehicles and military communications systems.
Windflow is strapped for cash and needs new customers if it is to survive.
[....]
Peace-loving Wellington mayor Celia Wade-Brown is unconcerned that a company in which she holds shares has this new bedfellowin the form of US military giant General Dynamics.
Alastair Nicholson and Celia Wade-Brown are among the top 20 shareholders of Windflow Technology, with 84,836 shares (0.54 per cent), according to Windflow’s most recent annual report.
(Emphasis added)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6547250/Windflow-brushes-off-nuclear-concern
(What the hell is a “peace-loving mayor anyway? Are the rest of them raving war-mongers?)
Scottish wind turbines might emit more CO2 than they “save”, because of CO2 released from peat bog
http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/scotland-s-wind-turbines-less-eco-friendly-than-they-appear-9740.html
Andy, I think you will enjoy this:-
That comparison is I presume, using the Nameplate Capacity of the wind turbines. Not a particularly useful value in that case.
It’s interesting for sure. However, I have to temper my enjoyment and fun. That gets me banned from websites.
Dellers has yet other piece on Wind
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100167303/aussies-drive-another-stake-into-the-heart-of-the-wind-farm-vampire/
That Australian MP Craig Kelly in the House of Representatives is on to it. Quite a revelation, I hardly ever see OZ MP speeches repeated for the substance they contain (same could be said for NZ).
I think there’s an error though, “inefficiently” should be replaced by “efficiently” in the following passage:-
“Overseas studies have suggested that we could actually lower our emissions of carbon dioxide if we did away with wind turbines altogether and just ran gas power stations inefficiently”
Yes, that was an obvious typo. This has been stated repeatedly. Using gas to replace coal will reduce emissions, and shale gas will reduce dependence on imports.
It seems like a no-brainer to me, but those agendas and that dogma run deep.
I think he meant to say inefficiently. The wind farms cause the on-again, off-again inefficiency of an otherwise efficient energy source. Just removing the wind farms would leave them better off, never mind running the gas generation properly.
If wind is removed, that source has to be replaced by another supplier. The “overseas study” Kelly alludes to suggests gas power is the best replacement in terms of CO2 emissions.
So then gas is supplying more constantly, the intermittent supply having been removed and the on/off gas cycles reduced. Therefore the gas supply is running more “efficiently”. Neglecting CO2 emissions, the same can be said for replacing wind with coal.
Whatever the interpretation, the more wind added to the grid, the more unstable, inefficient and unpredictable it becomes overall. Germany is learning this the hard way with the added complication that they have not planned transmission expansion to cope with wind energy coming from remote locations not serviced by the existing grid. Even when they do construct the transmission links, the links will be inefficient unless there’s conventional generation on the same line to diversify the load. Wind-only loads would range from 0 to peak power in an erratic way. A single coal or gas plant on the end of a line would also vary the load over a line in the same 0 to peak range but not in the same erratic way. The peak would remain constant the whole time between ramp up and ramp down.
We should give a shout out to another NZ blogger who is doing good work in this area
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-madness-of-wind-energy/
This wind farm scam reminds me of government IT projects. I have worked on a couple where we have wasted in the order of $50-70 million of taxpayers money on projects that will never work, and you know this from the first day on the jobs.
There were too many egos, too many stakeholders, too much groupthink, and the developers and engineers just get ignored.
There’s a couple of recent posts at BH with regard to costs etc
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/25/levelised-costs.html
and
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/25/so-long-and-fanks-for-all-the-corrections.html
This comment from Prof Gordon Hughes was interesting
Flood every single Highland valley? I can’t see that going down too well.
This is what I think of wind turbines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpcoOTXdQbk&feature=player_embedded#!
Sorry I couldn’t help myself.
Offshore Cork oil reserves are now upgraded to between 1 and 1 .6 billion barrels of oil, according to the Irish Press today.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0725/breaking9.html
Andy, were you looking for NZ wind generation data? Weekly here (Live at bottom of comment):-
Energy Link Market Review
Issue 795
Week ending 5 August 2012
Wind 3%
Movement in Average Generation: Wind & Thermal down, Hydro up, Total down.
http://www.energylink.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/mr-12-08-05-issue-795.pdf
Free subscription
http://www.energylink.co.nz/market-review/subscribe
Big surprise (for me), E3P about equivalent to TCC and those 2 combined outrank Waikato, Waitaki and Manapouri (and about 4x wind).
E3P 385MW CCGT at Huntly Unit 5
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/ep3/
TCC 380MW Taranaki – combined cycle
http://www.contactenergy.co.nz/web/shared/powerstations
Also, from the New Zealand Wind Energy Association:-
Generation capacity
The combined capacity – or the rated output – of wind farms in New Zealand is 622 megawatts. What this means is that at any given moment, if all wind farms were operating at their full capacity they could produce 622 megawatts of electricity.
…
New Zealand wind farms generate at an average of around 40% of their rated output – this figure is also referred as “capacity factor” and is among the highest in the world.
…
Hydro generation has an annual average capacity factor of around 50%, gas 65%, geothermal, 80%
http://windenergy.org.nz/nz-wind-farms/generation-statistics
By my estimation from the Energy Link graph for Week ending 5 August 2012, wind at about 150MW was operating at 24% capacity factor.
Live electricity generation information
Visit http://www.em6live.co.nz to find out how much electricity is being generated by wind farms right now.
Current Generation 9/8/12 19:00 (7pm) is about 150 MW (est from graph)
9pm (8/8/12) maybe 10 MW
12am 0 MW
3am 0 MW
Thanks Richard, I was aware of the em6live site but the other links are helpful
Estimated weekly CO2 Emissions at bottom of Energy Link Market Review makes interesting reading.
Huntly Units 1 – 4 from 0 to about 100,000 tonnes fluctuating (Genesis)
Huntly e3p is almost constant at 20,000 tonnes.(Genesis)
Genisis therefore, incurs the bulk of ETS (for elec gen) and would be purchasing most of the units, followed only (significantly) by Contact (OTAB and TCC).
It gets better Richard. Today the Uk output for wind is….. zero
Here’s the screengrab I took from NETA about 8.30pm NZT 9th August
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48940782/WindUKOutput090812.pdf
Ha! 12 MW (Current) and 14 MW (Last Half Hour) is considered to be zero contribution,
1518 MWH over Last 24 Hours would power about 30,360 homes at 50 kWh per day each. Wiki says there’s 3,506 wind turbines in the UK.
Works out at 8.66 houses per turbine.
[Actual range is about 5 - 50 kWh per day]
I just worked out too that if Genesis were paying the AU$23 carbon tax for just for E3P, they would be paying 20,000 x 365 x 23 = AU$167,900,000 per year. Then they would have to pay for Units 1 – 4 on top of that.
I’m now wondering how much AU generators are actually paying
My daily average electricity is 8.78 kWh per day for a single person house so at that usage, 1518 MWH would power 172,823 houses and 49 houses per turbine.
UK installed capacity 6580 MW divided by 3508 gives 1.88 MW per turbine and 45,120 kWh per day which at 40%, that one turbine would power 2056 single person houses.
So today, just over 2000 people per turbine (on a single person house basis), went without wind power in the UK.
And today, 2007 people x 3506 turbines = 7, 036,542 people in total that went without wind power on a single person house basis.
Not a good day for wind power in the UK.
Good grief, 12 MW from an installed capacity of 6580 MW is a capacity factor (CF) of 0.18 %.
Wiki cites UK CFs of Winter 38%, Summer 20%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Variability_and_related_issues
Citation:-
“Characteristics of the UK wind resource: Long-term patterns and relationship to electricity demand”
Graham Sinden, 2005
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf
Figure 1 shows overall reported CFs around 26% 1993 – 2003.
A more recent paper:-
‘Capacity factor of wind power realized values vs.estimates’
Nicolas Boccard, 2009
http://www.rocks.org.hk/activity2009/Capacity_factor%5B1%5D.pdf
Has UK CF of 26.1 % in Table 2.
Can’t copy anything but the abstract states that for two decades the European CF was assumed to be 30 – 35 % but the realized value for the last 5 years was 21 % with some financial consequences and a 40 % less than expected carbon emissions reduction.
Apparently the performance of the UK wind fleet has been extremely poor for some time now – this 0% was not an outlier.
em6live showed wind as zero percent of NZ grid at 6am this morning. There was a barely perceptible blip at 9am.
Wind must be having a go slow at the moment. Anthony Watts also has a piece on WUWT about the Californian supply
For some reason all my recent comments have ended up going nowhere (spam filter?)
My recent “no wind” screenshot made it onto EURef,
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83029
Will the message ever get through to our useless leaders? I doubt it.
My infamous screenshot now gets cited by Booker in his weekly column
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9468604/The-great-wind-delusion-has-hijacked-our-energy-policy.html
Andy, it seems to me that the relevant metric is not CF but something that indicates the availability of wind when you need it (US CAISO situation) and when you don’t need it (too much energy available).
I read in the NZ Electricity Authority reports how they were trying to work out how to dispatch DOWN in an equitable manner when they had too much energy.
The KPI would be Wind Availability vs Demand Profile perhaps. I can’t recall seeing anything like that anywhere just wind prediction success probabilities in on one of the Electricity Authority reports.
BTW nice contribution to EU Ref.
Booker:-
“As the windless days last week showed, we would have to build dozens of gas-fired power stations just to provide back-up for all the times when the wind is not blowing at the right speed”
Bob Sykes at BH:-
“…more correct to say that you are installing a gas-powered system with occasional supplements by wind”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/6/gordon-hughes-on-the-economics-of-wind-power.html
Andy,
Well done.
The Transpower grid upgrade is largely the result of a Government Policy Statement. The following is from:-
Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Upper North Island Grid Upgrade Project
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/call-in-transpower/board-of-inquiry/report-and-decision/final-report/index.html
[112] By clause 66 of the Government Policy Statement (GPS),21 (as
described in Chapter 4), the Electricity Commission was also required to take
into account the Government’s objective to facilitate the potential
contribution of renewables to the transmission system; and that the approval
criteria should allow grid upgrade plans to facilitate the efficient and timely
development of renewable generation resources, taking into account any
difference in lead times for transmission and generation investment.
[321] On 25 September 2008, the Electricity Act was amended by the 48th
Parliament to create a preference for renewable electricity generation by
restricting new baseload, fossil-fuelled, thermal electricity-generation
capacity (except where exempted by the Minister of Energy).
The “potential contribution of renewables to the transmission system” are from south of Whakamaru ([680]) but, here’s the kicker:-
[28] Up to 30 per cent of the winter peak load in the upper North Island
can be supplied by local generation in the Auckland area. Of that 30 per cent,
over half is supplied by a single combined-cycle, gas-fired generator at
Otahuhu.
Why then, would anyone restrict “new baseload, fossil-fuelled, thermal electricity-generation capacity” ?
If you do a Full Reader Search with “renewable” you will see what it’s all about.- 76 instances.
Interesting to see Bishop Hill now picking up on this
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/12/wind-a-zero-sum-industry.html
Amazing how much internet traffic you can generate from a simple Crtl-Alt-PrintScreen
Christopher Booker personally thanks me at Bishop Hill
Nice bloke
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/12/wind-a-zero-sum-industry.html#comments
“The graph from CAISO tells the story, wind power has tumbled when it is most needed”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/wind-power-not-coming-through-for-california-power-alert-issued-by-the-caiso/#more-68938
The NZ Electricity Authority’s response to a similar situation but caused by low hydro lake levels in 2008 has been that it will introduce “scarcity pricing” on 1 June 2013.
http://www.ea.govt.nz/our-work/programmes/priority-projects/scarcity-pricing-default-buy-back/
“The scarcity pricing Code amendment gazetted by the Authority provides for the introduction of a $10,000/MWh price floor and $20,000/MWh price cap to the spot market when an electricity supply emergency causes forced power cuts (called emergency load shedding) throughout one or both islands.
Although emergency load shedding is very unlikely to occur, the $10,000/MWh price floor is intended to give investors in last-resort generation plant (and investors in demand response capability) confidence that emergency load shedding will not undermine the business case for investing in those resources. This promotes reliable supply by the electricity industry, which reduces the risk of emergency load shedding occurring.”
[Normal prices are around $80 per MWh]
I think load shedding could occur if the wind component became too great in the overall NZ generation makeup as in the US CAISO situation but we’re a long way from that.
A very influential US Professor Bill Hogan has been touting “better” scarcity pricing all over the world to make a “level playing field” for renewables. See his presentation to the NZ Electricity Authority here (essentially heavy going economics):-
http://www.ea.govt.nz/about-us/documents-publications/
There’s a perverse situation in electricity where normal supply/demand price determination doesn’t work in tight supply situations. Read about that in Hogan’s papers.
But what I find interesting is the Authority’s Dispatchable Demand initiative (DD).
http://www.ea.govt.nz/our-work/programmes/priority-projects/dispatchable-demand/
“The DD initiative, in particular, is likely to increase competitive pressure on spot prices during tight supply situations, as providers of last resort plant will be competing with demand-side participants for dispatch.
When fully introduced the DD regime also has the potential to make greater use of standby generation plants, which should also increase competitive pressure on mainstream generators when supply situations are tight”
There’s only 1 – 3 major demand side users who will be able to take advantage of this initially but wind being only 3% and already dispatched for supply might be the generation sector to be most at risk because they will be competing smack up against major demand side users willing to be dispatched to shed load (stop taking supply by stopping/re-scheduling operations or starting their backup generators).
The question is: will wind get preferential treatment by dispatchers in a DD situation?
Just realized my question is moot if there’s zero contribution.from wind – lost the thread of my DD point there in the composing of it unfortunately.
DD would compete against Contact Energy’s 200MW fast-start gas peaker plant at Stratford maybe.
http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz/Energy+NZ/Issue+10+Spring+2009/Gas+projects+to+the+rescue.html
“The gas peaker plant will help Contact manage the increasing volatility of electricity generation as more renewables mean more capacity that depends on the rain falling (hydro stations), or the wind blowing (wind farms). It will perform the critical task of replacing lost generation capacity through any unexpected shutdowns more efficiently and much more quickly”
Analysis of wind integration
This page provides historical and forecast information relating to wind integration work.
In this section you will find:
* Synthetic wind data
* Longer-term synthetic wind series
* Correlation between wind generation output and hydro inflows
The Electricity Commission made a number of presentation at the New Zealand Wind Energy Conference on Wind Integration. Copies of the presentations are available below.
Related Documents
Wind Integration Project (WIP) presentation – 2009
presentation-Apr09.pdf | pdf | 188 KB | Modified: 13/01/2011 2:46pm
Transmission to enable renewables update
presentation-Apr09.pdf | pdf | 1 MB | Modified: 25/10/2010 5:58pm
Wind Integration – the long view
presentation-Apr09.pdf | pdf | 237 KB | Modified: 05/10/2010 9:32am
http://www.ea.govt.nz/industry/monitoring/forecasting/analysis-of-wind-integration/
Transmission to enable renewables update
Generation Expansion Model (GEM) base case inputs
Main key drivers
Carbon charge $75/tCO2
Shortage of gas –import LNG in 2020 at $25/GJ (assumed oil at 100 USD/barrel and exchange rate at 0.65)
Diesel cost at $33/GJ (~$1.30/litre)
Coal price at $4/GJ ??
Wind assumptions
Capital cost: $2600/kW
Variable O&M: $15/MWh
Plant life: 20 years
Depreciation rate: 19%
Capacity factor: 0.35-0.45
LRMC ~$100/MWh
Wind Integration – the long view (NZ)
Consider the 2 graphs:
Generation Expansion Model Long Run Marginal Cost – Carbon charge = 0 $/t (page 4 pdf)
Generation Expansion Model Long Run Marginal Cost – Carbon charge = 100 $/t (page 4 pdf)
***************************************************************************************************************
0$ carbon charge ranking as MW increase (rough guessing from stupid colour code):-
1 CCGT
2 Geothermal
3 Either – Hydro Peaking or Minor Coal or IGCC/CCS or Lignite
4 CCGT/CCS
5000 MW
5 Major Coal
6 Minor Wind, Geothermal, Hydro ROR and one of the 3rd rank
10,000 MW
7 Major Wind
8 Minor Lignite, IGCC/CCS, Coal Dry Years
9 Either – Hydro Peaking, Minor Coal, IGCC/CCS, Lignite
10 Fast Start Gas Fired Peaker
11 Minor Wind
12 Major Lignite
13 Diesel Peaker
14 Minor one of the 3rd rank
15 Major Hydro Pumped Storage
***************************************************************************************************************
100$ carbon charge ranking as MW increase (rough guessing from stupid colour code):-
1 Minor Geothermal, Either – Hydro Peaking or Minor Coal, IGCC/CCS or Lignite, Hydro ROR
2000 MW
2 Major Wind, Geothermal, Either – Hydro Peaking or Minor Coal or IGCC/CCS or Lignite, Gas Peaker
3 Either – Hydro Peaking or Minor Coal or IGCC/CCS or Lignite, Minor Wind
25,000 MW
4 CCGT/CCS, Major Coal, CCGT
5 Lignite, Either – Hydro Peaking or Minor Coal or IGCC/CCS
6 CCGT
7 Either – Hydro Peaking or Minor Coal or IGCC/CCS or Lignite
8 Diesel Peaker, Hydro Pumped Storage
****************************************************************************************************************
Interactive Electricity Generation Cost Model 2011
This model is an interactive tool designed to provide users with insights into the potential costs of new generation, and the uncertainty surrounding these costs when key assumptions such as fuel prices, emissions price, exchange rates, etc. are changed.
The projects are ranked from cheapest to most expensive based on their estimated “Long run marginal cost” (LRMC). LRMC is the wholesale price a generator needs to earn, on average, in order to recover capital and operating costs and earn an economic return on investment.
The model also explores how future demand growth might be met. It assumes the cheapest projects are selected first and that sufficient plant must be available to meet both energy demand and peak demand.
Note that this model is illustrative only and does not represent a complete list of all possible future generation projects.
This is a simplified version of the electricity model used in the Energy Outlook 2011. The Energy Outlook uses the Electricity Authority’s “GEM” optimisation model to determine the least cost build of new generation. More information on the GEM model can be found in the Technical Guide for Energy Outlook Modelling or on the Electricity Authority’s website.
Download the document
Electricity generation cost model [4.1 MB XLS]
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/modelling/new-zealands-energy-outlook/interactive-electricity-generation-cost-model-2010/
Technical Guide for Energy Outlook Modelling
Version 2.0 January 2012
1 Overview
The Ministry of Economic Development’s (MED) current approach to energy modelling for the Energy Outlook uses five distinct (but interrelated) models:
Supply and Demand Energy Model (SADEM);
electricity Grid Expansion Model (GEM);
electricity price forecast model;
oil and gas models;
and the Vehicle Fleet Model (VFM).
These models are used to produce forecasts of energy supply and demand and energy sector greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/pdf-docs-library/energy-data-and-modelling/technical-papers/technical-guide-energy-outlook-modelling-v2-Jan-2012.pdf
Contrary to the 0$ carbon charge GEM graph in ‘Wind Integration – the long view (NZ)’, wind ranks ahead of gas base load when I enter a 0$ carbon charge and 8$ per GJ wholesale gas price in the “simplified” spreadsheet.
Not sure what the simplification is yet, I’ll have to read the Technical Guide for GEM.
Wind generation investigation project (WGIP)
To accommodate the connection of further wind generation while maintaining the integrity of the New Zealand power system, the Electricity Commission initiated a strategic project to assess the likely impact of wind generation development over the next 5 to 10 years. This study was to identify wider power system and electricity market implications of additional wind generation and how these can be best resolved to enable the development of wind generation on a “level playing field” with other generation sources.
http://www.ea.govt.nz/our-work/programmes/pso-cq/wgip/
WGIP scope
The Commission consulted on the scope of work for this project, with the final scope (72 KB) approved by the Board in September 2005.
The reports are complete and can be downloaded below:
* Commission summary report (598 KB)
* Garrad Hassan report on wind power variability and forecast accuracy in New Zealand (791 KB)
* Investigation 1 (Part A): Effect of unpredictability of wind generation on pre-dispatch processes (369 KB)
* Investigation 1 (Part B): Effect of unpredictability of wind generation output on scheduling (1.4 MB)
* Investigation 2: Effect of wind generation on dispatch (396 KB)
* Investigation 3: Effect of wind generation variability on asset loading (657 KB)
* Investigation 4: Effect of wind generation on ability to manage system voltages within voltage quality targets (1.4 MB)
* Investigation 5: Effect of wind generation on management of frequency excursions (616 KB)
* Investigation 6: Effect of wind generation on small disturbance voltage stability (1.2 MB)
* Investigation 7 to 9 (Stage 1): Digsilent Report (574 KB)
* Investigation 7 (Stage 2): Effect of wind generation on transient stability (4.2 MB)
* Investigation 8 (Stage 2): Effect of wind generation on small signal stability (3.4 MB)
* Investigation 9 (Stage 2): Effect of wind generation on reactive power contributions and dynamic voltage responses (1.3 MB)
WGIP Objectives (from Intro linked below):-
“Rules and related arrangements that neither penalise nor favour wind generation, relative to its true system costs & benefits”
From WGIP ‘Implications analysis’ in the briefing list linked below:-
“Generators must comply with dispatch instructions”
But,
“Wind generation is not required to comply with dispatch instructions”
And (from INVESTIGATION 6),
“The current electricity market arrangements in New Zealand require wind generators to offer their output at a price of $0 or $0.01 per MWh. This effectively results in wind generation being dispatched ahead of most other forms of generation, such that generation plant providing reactive support is displaced by minimum capability wind generation plant”.
Also some very telling plots:-
300 MW wind farm output forecast (23 hours out) and actual (at dispatch) – page 64
Manawatu wind generation, day – pages 71 – 74
Manawatu wind generation, week – 79
[Indication of alt/reserve dispatch would be helpful in the above plots]
Conclusions
–Wind generation forecast [errors] will exceed load forecast error within a few years
–A review of SO tools and processes in light of wind forecast errors is required
http://www.ea.govt.nz/our-work/programmes/pso-cq/wgip/
Briefing covering investigations 1-6
* Introduction (Peter Harris) (71 KB)
* Implications analysis (Graeme Ancell, System Operator) (2.1 MB)
* Variability and unpredictability analysis (Dougal McQueen, Garrad Hassan) (116 KB)
* Options framework (Jim Truesdale, Concept Consulting) (39 KB)
Firming capacity wrt the WGIP Objectives:-
Deloitte 2012 report ‘Economics of wind development in New Zealand’ states
Wiki tells us that In the 2011 calendar year, wind power produced 1,930,000 MWh of electricity so using that year, the wind sector avoids firming costs of $3.86m pa and $386m over 10 years.
But (from Deloitte 2012):-
Introducing the Electricity Demand and Generation Scenarios (EDGS)
Discussion paper July 2012 PDF Document 639kb
Proposed base capital cost assumptions for the EDGS 2012 Excel spreadsheet 136kb
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/modelling/electricity-demand-and-generation-scenarios/introducing-the-electricity-demand-and-generation-scenarios-edgs
Scenario design rationale
53. By focusing on the mix of renewable technologies (particularly wind and geothermal) and the quantity of thermal generation, the four proposed EDGS scenarios reflect the Ministry’s current understanding about technology costs and trade‐offs.
54. Last year, in preparation for the EDGS, the Ministry commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to update the technical and capital cost assumptions for use in the Generation Expansion Model (GEM). The final report is published on the Ministry’s website at:
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/pdf-docs-library/energy-data-and-modelling/technical-papers/2011%20NZ%20Generation%20Data%20Update%20v006a.pdf
55. Figure 3 shows the Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC) of new generation projects using the PB report and the Energy Outlook 2011 Reference Scenario assumptions. The LRMC is a common measure used to compare the relative costs of new generation options.
56. While there is a high level of uncertainty about the relative costs of each technology, Figure 3 indicates that geothermal may be the cheapest new generation option. The quantity of baseload thermal generation will be heavily influenced by gas resource availability and the price of carbon emissions. If there is sufficient affordable gas available, new gas combined cycle turbines (CCGTs) are likely to be built.
57. The carbon price will also have a big impact on all existing and potential new thermal generation, particularly coal. Although the coal price is important and will be carefully considered, the carbon price will be used by the Ministry as the primary driver for coal investment, since a high carbon price will make new coal investment uneconomic.
58. The Ministry is currently unaware of any generator proposals to build new coal fired electricity‐only plants in New Zealand; however there is technically a very large fuel resource available. New coal generation will be included in the assumption sets; however, it is unlikely to be built in scenarios with mid–high carbon prices (as shown in Figure 3). Other generation options such as hydro and cogeneration will also be represented in the assumption sets for all
scenarios.
59. Table 2 summarises the potential new generation capacity (MW) by project stage for each of the dominant technologies currently being proposed by generators (excluding gas and diesel peakers). It is based on the PB report, with some revisions as new information has become available.
60. Table 2 shows there is a very large quantity of wind projects already fully consented compared with only a handful of geothermal proposals. Nearly two‐thirds of the around 1,600 MW of the geothermal resource available (and included on the previous LRMC chart) are generic plants that have not been publically proposed by generators. As well as this, many of these resources are greenfield or previously undeveloped resources.
61. If geothermal resources prove to be plentiful (and cheap) then geothermal energy could dominate future baseload build. On the other hand, if the capital cost of wind technology falls (as some commentators expect) and geothermal resources are limited, then wind generation will be more prominent.
62. While hydro is likely to always remain New Zealand’s dominant source of electricity generation, Figure 3 and Table 2 show it is not likely to dominate new generation development in the short to medium term. Large hydro developments are particularly difficult to consent and recent cost estimates put them as being more expensive than other generation options.
****************************************************************************************************************
Also see MED Technical Papers:-
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/technical-papers
New Zealand’s Energy Outlook
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/modelling/new-zealands-energy-outlook/
Download the documents
* Energy Outlook 2011 [902 KB PDF]
* Energy Outlook 2011 Technical Guide [985 KB PDF]
* Electricity generation and build [614 KB XLS]
* Emissions [1.1 MB XLS]
* Energy prices [399 KB XLS]
* Energy supply and demand [1.2 MB XLS]
From ‘Energy Outlook 2011′ pg 11:-
Emissions Price Sensitivity Analysis
Highlights:
[...]
So the ETS adds to a nominal no emissions electricity price as follows:
The ‘Electricity generation and build’ XLS spreadsheet makes it much easier to envisage what generation gets built and when using the emissions price Low/High tabs than do the LRMC graphs that are output from GEM.
In the “Low” ($0/t) scenario, an 80 MW coal stn gets built in 2023 and a 560 MW coal stn gets built in 2028.
In the “Ref” ($25/t) scenario, only an 80 MW coal stn gets built in 2021.
In the “High” ($100/t) scenario, only an 80 MW coal stn gets built in 2020.
In the “Low” (0$/t) scenario, no new wind plant gets built until 2023.
In the “Ref” ($25/t) scenario, 284 MW of wind plant gets built before 2023.
In the “High” ($100/t) scenario, 938 MW of wind plant gets built before 2023.
SNP proposes wind farm ‘propaganda’ for the classroom
SNP minsters are planning to undermine community opposition to wind farms by having teachers tell schoolchildren that turbines benefit the environment, according to official guidance just published
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9490886/SNP-proposes-wind-farm-propaganda-for-the-classroom.html
This should come as no surprise to residents of the Stalinist State of New Zealand where public TV propaganda aimed at children is the norm
Germany — Insane Or Just Plain Stupid?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/08/31/germany-insane-or-just-plain-stupid/
“German industrial and manufacturing sectors – steel, aluminum, paper, cement, plastics, chemical – are migrating to countries with cheaper electricity as energy and carbon-costs are eating up to 50% of their expenses. Almost one in five German industrial companies plans to, or already has, shifted capacities abroad”
The euphemism I think, is “carbon leakage”.
Wind turbines noise in Scotland.
A video showing the high level of noise (measured with a dB meter) from a windfarm in Ayrshire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzNj9DKDk1c
Toyota drops plan for electric car:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/us-toyota-electric-idUSBRE88N0CT20120924
Coal costs force Fonterra’s hand
Dairy juggernaut Fonterra is planning a major new coal mine in north Waikato, saying that will be cheaper than buying coal from Solid Energy, the state-owned enterprise axing 120 jobs at Huntly, blaming falling prices.
Fonterra’s coal mining company Glencoal is about to apply for resource consents to develop an open cast coalmine on 30ha of farmland it has owned for 10 years between Mangatawhiri Rd and the new State Highway 2 at Maramarua.
The proposed mine would replace Glencoal’s 18-year-old Kopako 3 (K3) mine 8km south of Maramarua, which is nearing the end of its working life.
[...]
New Zealand’s biggest company uses coal to power its Hautapu, Te Awamutu and Waitoa plants in Waikato.
>>>>>>
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/coal-costs-force-fonterra-s-hand-5112717
The coal energy utilized by those plants is about equivalent to the electrical energy demand of the City of Hamilton I think (last did that calc years ago).
A video (in German) about wind developments in Germany
http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/?display=1&mode=play&obj=27847
Around 3 min 50, check out the incredible view of massive arrays of turbines right next to houses
I watched DW In Focus about CFLs on Central TV last night and it’s damning re mercury (and just about everything else), the chemist and environmental health researchers (German) were scathing. Anyone who promotes CFLs after watching that is out of their minds.
Can’t find the one I watched but I think this one is similar
http://mediacenter.dw.de/english/pictures/item/628371/Lights_out_for_incandescent_bulbs/
From the blurb “Energy-saving lamps contain toxic mercury and are hazardous. They can be collected and recycled in special boxes. Unfortunately, many people throw energy saving light bulbs in the trash – which is harmful to the environment”
That’s about the least of the problem
Germany facing power blackouts
Professor Jim Al-Khalili, thorium to produce nuclear power – University of Huddersfield
A short YouTube clip from a well known physicist and BBC presenter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6X9hQCHHGtI
Death knell for wind farms: ‘Enough is Enough’ says minister
Wind farms have been “peppered” across Britain without enough consideration for the countryside and people’s homes, a senior Conservative energy minister admitted last night as he warned “enough is enough”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9644558/Death-knell-for-wind-farms-Enough-is-Enough-says-minister.html
and Booker has a piece on this
Ten years too late, it’s good riddance to wind farms – one of the most dangerous delusions of our age
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2225544/Ten-years-late-s-good-riddance-wind-farms–dangerous-delusions-age.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
and Bishop Hill
***Did Hayes just kill the wind industry?***
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/30/did-hayes-just-kill-the-wind-industry.html
The Environmental Defense Fund Comes Out In Support Of Fracking
The Environmental Defense Fund’s chief counsel has written a blog post detailing the non-profit’s support for hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.
The EDF is well known for pouring money into global warming, clean air and oil spill cleanup fights.
In the case of fracking, Brownstein says, it mainly comes down to eliminating coal.
“We fear that those who oppose all natural gas production everywhere are, in effect, making it harder for the U.S. economy to wean itself from dirty coal,” he said.
The fund’s Mark Brownstein lays out three reasons to back natgas:
Fracking is already a common, widespread practice
On balance, they’d rather see natural gas-powered electricity plans than coal-powered ones. “We are glad to see these coal plants go,” he says. Plus, natural gas is the feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals and fertilizer, and for direct heating and cooling
Any potential hazards can be regulated. “Effective oversight and enforcement with the necessary financial and human resources [can] make [regulations] real.
He closes thusly:
Natural gas production can never be made entirely safe; like any intensive industrial activity, it involves risks. But having studied the issue closely, we are convinced that if tough rules, oversight and penalties for noncompliance are put in place, these risks become manageable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/environmental-defense-fund-supports-fracking-2012-9#ixzz2DHHcxMkP
Well done, them. Finally, a group of activists sees past its ideology and approves a harmless, practicable technology. Admittedly, it’s for the wrong reason of avoiding clean, cheap, coal-fired generation, but it’s a step forward.
Also, from NZ
Environment report not likely to seek fracking ban
New Zealand’s environmental watchdog is unlikely to call for a ban on fracking upon the release of her initial inquiry into the controversial oil and gas industry technique.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright will on Tuesday release her report on fracking, which involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals under high pressure into rock masses, from as little as several hundred metres underground, to help release oil and gas.
The report follows an eight-month investigation instigated after it was revealed fracking was being undertaken without consent, and some operations had polluted the air, groundwater and soil.
As Wright prepares to table her report in Parliament, the Star-Times has learnt that any suggestions to either ban fracking or allow it to be continued but with stricter guidelines and consent processes, would instead be included in a second, yet-to-be completed report.
Wright’s investigation comes at a time when a growing number of overseas countries are banning fracking due to environmental disasters and reported links to an increase in seismic activity.
Fracking has been carried out in New Zealand for more than 20 years, with numerous operations by energy companies without specific consent from local councils.
Green Party energy spokesman Gareth Hughes said if Wright did not make a binding stand on fracking in her report, he would call on the Government to order a moratorium on fracking until the procedure was proven safe.
“Until it can be proven we have got a robust regulatory regime to protect our environment, we shouldn’t be undertaking this massive expansion which is currently planned,” Hughes said.
..etc
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7994726/Environment-report-not-likely-to-seek-fracking-ban
Mitic ENERGY AND CLIMATE
for last amended version see:
http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/SUB-RET-2012-005.pdf
Mitic ENERGY AND CLIMATE
for last amended version see:
http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/SUB-RET-2012-005.pdf
The conversion of a pro wimd lawyer
http://stopthesethings.com/2013/01/13/the-conversion-of-a-pro-wind-lawyer/
A good read about a decent legal chap in Aussie who saw the light.
Read the final sentence
Welcome To Green Europe
Tens of thousands of trees have disappeared from parks and woodlands this winter across Greece as the crisis-hit country’s impoverished residents, too broke to pay for electricity or fuel, turn to fireplaces and wood stoves for heat. –Nektaria Stamouli and Stelios Bouras, The Wall Street Journal, 12 January 2013
When the mercury falls, the theft of wood in the country’s woodlands goes up as people turn to cheaper ways to heat their homes. With energy costs escalating, more Germans are turning to wood burning stoves for heat. That, though, has also led to a rise in tree theft in the country’s forests. The problem has been compounded this winter by rising energy costs. The Germany’s Renters Association estimates the heating costs will go up 22 percent this winter alone.–Spiegel Online, 17 January 2013
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/regions/europe/
Bjorn Lomborg via Facebook
The article in question is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/sunday-review/life-after-oil-and-gas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The Climate Circus Leaves Town
As traditional energy sources go from doom and gloom to boom.
Apr 29, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 31 • By STEVEN F. HAYWARD
If you had told environmentalists on Election Day 2008 that four years later there’d be no successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, that a Democratic Congress would not have enacted any meaningful climate legislation, that domestic oil production would be soaring even after a catastrophic offshore oil spill, and that the environmental community would be having a lively internal debate about whether it should support reviving nuclear power, most might have marched into the ocean to drown themselves. Yet that’s the state of play four months into President Obama’s second term.
Start with climate change.
[...]
After two decades of steady and substantial global temperature increase from 1980 to 1998, the pause in warming is causing a crisis for the climate crusade. It wasn’t supposed to happen like this. The recent temperature record is falling distinctly to the very low end of the range predicted by the climate models and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, something is going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle. Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line. Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too.
These inconvenient data are causing the climate science community to reconsider the issue of climate sensitivity—that is, how much warming greenhouse gases actually cause—as I predicted would happen in these pages three years ago: “Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?”
[...]
The final unexpected aspect of the global hydrocarbon renaissance is that it is starting to cause a few environmentalists to have second thoughts about . . . nuclear power. For nearly 30 years nuclear power was the only form of energy environmentalists despised more than hydrocarbons. But even with Japan’s nuclear power plant disaster of 2011, some environmentalists have come to see a positive tradeoff of nuclear power over coal and natural gas. James Hansen recently co-authored a paper concluding that nuclear power has saved 1.8 million lives over coal and gas-fired alternative electricity sources since 1970, and will prevent 7 million deaths by midcentury if it supplants a significant portion of fossil fuel electricity. In June a new documentary film, Pandora’s Promise, will feature prominent environmentalists, such as Stewart Brand, who have changed their mind on nuclear power. The film was screened to good reviews at the most recent Sundance Film Festival; apparently the resolutely anti-nuke host, Robert Redford, hadn’t noticed it on the program. But there’s a lot the old fossils of environmentalism don’t notice these days, starting with the dead-end road they’ve hit.
Steven F. Hayward is the Thomas Smith fellow at the Ashbrook Center, and the William Simon distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-circus-leaves-town_718070.html?page=3
NZ Green/Labour economic sabotage
Hey Clint, are we pleased?
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/green-mps-embarrassing-hey-clint-moment-goes-viral-full-version-139093
“More Hydro is Better than Wind”
There are 54,000 dams in the United States that are higher than 5 ft., and do not currently have equipment installed for generating electricity.
An assessment by the Department of Energy (DOE) of all non-powered dams (NPDs) in the United States determined that these dams could provide 12,000 MW of generating capacity.
A mere 100 of them could provide 8,000 MW of generating capacity.
The report did not determine the cost of installing generating equipment at these existing dams, but there is little doubt that these dams could generate electricity at a lower cost than wind turbines.
The cost of building the dams has already been incurred, and since the dams are already built, there would be little environmental impact. For example, they wouldn’t kill birds and bats as do wind turbines.
The electricity from the NPDs would be dispatchable, and would therefore have greater value to grid operators than electricity generated from wind farms.
Read more..
http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/more-hydro-is-better-than-wind/