The cost of these new projects needs to be seen as a responsible use of the country’s scarce financial resources compared to the huge waste likely to have occurred pursuing some of the last government’s ill conceived ideas.
It isn’t difficult to come up with a list of projects that are capable of providing the reliable generating capacity the country needs while taking into account that expected demand is likely to have almost doubled by 2050.
While many of the new projects on offer qualify as reliable producers of green energy, those chosen should be on the basis of their efficient use of our natural resources and taxpayers’ money.
One of the reasons why we have a history second to none taking advantage of our natural resourced, reliable generating capacity - ie mainly hydro and geothermal dependency - is because it has allowed us to benefit from the relatively cheap generator construction and energy reticulation costs to date. Building new plants close to the major users in the North Island in future will leave the unused capacity at existing South Island generators in reserve for peak loadings when they occur.
It has also meant we have time to plan the seamless introduction of additional plants that can be built at sites as close as possible to the end user.
If for example, we should decide to build a medium sized nuclear plant on the West Coast, south of Auckland, the output of that generator alone would enable us to transfer the costly supply of the Tiwai aluminium smelter’s needs from Manapouri to other new developments or existing efficient users in the South Island.
This best use of taxpayers’ money is the key to our future as a self sufficient user of green energy.
My suggestion is to do the sums that accompany the two determining factors which are reliability and efficiency when deciding on building any additional generating capacity.
Using those parameters, it is impossible to not consider nuclear power and a rearrangement of existing capacity as the proposals having priority.
It amazes me that we have until now, been placing so much emphasis on the inclusion of wind and solar plants which fail almost every test based on the above criteria.
Fortunately, other costly ideas have been abandoned for obvious reasons.
The rationale behind pump hydro was similar to an explosion in a mattress factory.
Enough already.
We should be taking advantage of being well ahead of the pack in achieving our emissions reduction targets by 2050 and perhaps the main reason for that happening is because we have rid ourselves of unnecessary, ideologically driven attempts to destroy the livestock farming industry in the process
.
We can have our cake and eat it!
We can have our cake and eat it!
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and
community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
15 comments:
You make too much good sense Clive. Look at the nonsense being spouted by the CEO of Genesis. A Climate Alarmist, appointed by the last useless Govt, plans to waste shareholder returns ruining our countryside with windmills and solar panel nonsense. A small nuclear energy plant makes perfect sense. Also look at our disregard for our mounting waste problem. Our ham fisted solution is to bury it. How macabre. Look at how successful Waste to Energy plants work all over Europe. Doesn’t that make good sense to both solve our waste problem and generate power all over NZ? Our pioneering spirit died long ago and has been replaced by red tape and bullshit.
Nuclear is a joke. It's the most expense way to generate electricity, with costs that keep going up over time. Nowhere in the world will public companies build and run nuclear unless they get massive state subsidies.
If you think 16 billion for Lake Onslow is expensive, Nuclear would be likely to double that cost.
For a reality check, read this:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/06/nuclear-energy-free-market-capitalism-arent-compatible/
Clive Bibby says here ‘that expected demand is likely to have almost doubled by 2050’. That maybe so, but not through increased population, which will be expected to rise by far less than that. Rather, it will be through considerably higher per-capita consumption because there is a revolution already under way towards electric vehicles. It is likely these will be become cheaper as production increases and the infrastructure to charge them on the run will be developed, like petrol supplies now are. If you don’t believe in them you had better reconsider, because oil is going to run out in the not-too-distant future. We can’t keep sucking it out of the ground indefinitely. Electric driven mobility is more compelling than cleaning up the atmosphere. Electrification will be driven by escalating oil prices. Necessity is the mother of invention – it’s been invented anyway. Indeed, some I know are charging their car batteries from solar panels on the roof. Yep, a revolution is underway.
The writer doesn’t say what sources of power will meet our future demands, other than a hint at nuclear energy, which is not even a stater for as far ahead as we can see – too costly, and politically unacceptable to the New Zealand public. So what? Our hydro capacity, which has served, and is serving, as so well is at capacity, with some potential perhaps for more geothermal.
So that leaves wind and solar. Yes, as is so often said, they don’t generate when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. These must rate as the most profound truisms of our time, alongside that cars don’t run if there’s no petrol in the tank. But if wind turbines are losers, then how come they are being installed all around the world, including this country? There’s a new farm coming on stream on the Napier-Taupo Road that will power 70,000 homes. The one south of the Manawatu Gorge, begun in 1999 now has 134 turbine, and I have never seen them not turning, even when there is not a breath of wind down on the highway. (And yes, they are an imposition of the landscape, but I can’t recall any one offering that objection to the steel pylons that cross the country that carry power to our homes.) Likewise, solar panels are being installed as solar farms and on roof tops here and abroad.
That’s the future, enabled by dramatic increases in battery technology. How much did we know about electric cars and e-bikes 10 t0 15 years ago? By the middle of the century, in spite of the luddites, this technology will be unremarkable. By then Kiwis, along with the rest of the world, will have other challenges to worry about, and they will be big ones.
Anonymous.
I agree a case can be made against the subsidies spent maintaining a nuclear network but the counter to that argument must be the inclusion of nuclear power as a reliable source of clean energy to power the modern world economies.
It would appear that nuclear has achieved that status of most reliable and efficient clean energy in spite of the subsidies
Ask the French why their network is 70% nuclear powered or why the other large economies are committing so much of their financial resources to establishing nuclear as a large part of their own networks.
Even the IPCC have Nuclear at the top of their list of reliable green energy options these days.
Who would have thought this would happen when PM Norman Kirk waved goodbye to our warship sent to observe the Mururoa tests in the Pacific.
Since those days, we no longer talk about the dangers of radiation leaks simply because the energy source, used under strict controls, is regarded as safe and the threat of breakdowns with contamination is manageable.
Anonymous.
I agree a case can be made against the subsidies spent maintaining a nuclear network but the counter to that argument must be the inclusion of nuclear power as a reliable source of clean energy to power the modern world economies.
It would appear that nuclear has achieved that status of most reliable and efficient clean energy in spite of the subsidies
Ask the French why their network is 70% nuclear powered or why the other large economies are committing so much of their financial resources to establishing nuclear as a large part of their own networks.
Even the IPCC have Nuclear at the top of their list of reliable green energy options these days.
Who would have thought this would happen when PM Norman Kirk waved goodbye to our warship sent to observe the Mururoa tests in the Pacific.
Since those days, we no longer talk about the dangers of radiation leaks simply because the energy source, used under strict controls, is regarded as safe and the threat of breakdowns with contamination is manageable.
Pull the other one Ewan
You claim to know how kiwis will respond to higher power prices when you can’t even tell us what their reaction will be to unreliable supplies.
If we look at just about any country on the modern world, including our closest neighbour Australia, governments stand or fall on the population response to blackouts. You say that NewZealanders will not accept nuclear power any time soon. Not sure how you know that to be an accurate prophesy or is just a bit of wishful idealogical thinking.
But the thing that forces Government’s to consider nuclear power more than any other is because it is another reliable clean source of the energy we require at all times during the day or night and actually a medium sized plant can be built for a fraction of the cost of the abandoned Pump Hydro schemes that almost forgot the nod both here and in Australia. So, who says it is too costly - you!
We are fortunate in this country that the bulk of our requirements are momentarily being met by hydro and geothermal but when compared to nuclear, alternatives like wind and solar, because of their unreliability and inefficiency plus high maintenance and reticulation costs will be seen as less attractive long term investments.
Ask any Logistics person where is the best place to have stock and they will say as close to the market as possible. Electricity is no different, if the storage is at the opposite end of the country for your consumer, you have the same problems of trying to transport it quickly when demand shoots up. Lake Onslow = Fail. That's before you start talking about cost.
So Clive, the way of the future here is nuclear power. Leaving aside the fact that the Government has no interest in giving it the thumbs up, it will take at least a decade to even get a consent, another 5 years to plan it, and another decade to build it, so, what fills the growing gap in the meantime? You have rubbished solar & wind. You justify nuclear being subsidized, so it’s okay that the taxpayer helps meet the householder’s power bills. We’ve just elected a Government to reduce spending, so, as the saying goes, let’s do it.
Your idea of building “a medium sized nuclear plant on the West Coast, south of Auckland” might seem like a great idea from the safe distance of Tolaga Bay, but what do the folk in Auckland think about it? Here’s an idea; send you column the editor of the N Z Herald, or, to be safe, write a letter. The paper’s circulation covers half the country’s population. See what the reaction is.
Further, you can’t compare our situation with countries like France with a far larger population and little hydro opportunity. Therefore, it’s either massive amounts of fossil fuel or nuclear.
Yup - Nuclear Energy.
Yup - if we go down that road I can just hear American Military & Civil Entities saying "You are going to do what.."?
Just keep in mind Folks, that Dear Sainted David Lange put paid to any thought of Nuclear Energy - an action that "curtailed NZ Military Involvement with American Counterparts for many years", which has of recent times "started to thaw" - more curtsey of our NZ Military People (than our Govts) and how they have interacted with American Military when given the chance.
Australia has contemplated Nuclear Power - they are still "contemplating" and with the current Federal Govt/ Labour - I think they will be continuing to contemplate for some time to come.
The Tories in England, had the same thoughts as Aussie - they too are still thinking - Immigration overload is their current issue.
How about another Manopuri - this time with out the Ship??
We’ll see what the people think about nuclear when the cost of solar and wind doesn’t provide the answers.
If the next generation decide to go down that road and see the benefits especially with the safety measures that come with the evolving technological advances, there is every chance that your predictions will fail to eventuate.
And l haven’t given up on more hydro plants which can be built in catchments where they are no threat to the environment.
I have never rubbished Solar or Wind or even Wave generation but in order to be viable options they must compete as reliable alternatives vying for the limited available development finance. The only reason they are being used to the extent they are today is because the people making decisions on our behalf are held captive by the radical environmental lobby.
We need to be visionary with ideas for the future these days and it takes time to break down prejudices built on bygone experiences.
And unfortunately, that word creates fear amongst those who are in leadership roles these days and frightened of their own shadow, but it is the only thing that will help us progress.
So, you haven’t given up on hydro plants, Clive. Name specific catchments that today meet the demanding criteria needed; ample water, geological stability, not in rivers under conservation status or in national parks, cost effective, and let’s not forget the ultimate requirement – public acceptance.
Further, you claim not to have rubbished solar and wind power, but you’ve done more than that. You have rubbished the tens of thousands around the world and in this country who are responsible for their development as being “held captive by the radical environmental lobby”. Nonsense and a total insult.
Anonymous ( you sound suspiciously like Ewan McGregor)
Whatever - Spoken like the radical environmentalist l am referring to.
There are plenty of catchment areas in the North Island national parks that have rivers that could be damned and nobody would notice.
And if we are just talking about low level damns, the abandoned Ruataniwha project could be built higher and provide options for both irrigation and hydro. Other virtually unused catchments in the Raukumara ranges also spring to mind as ones that have dual potential as well.
And if we did that, we wouldn’t need to continue with this costly concentration on unreliable wind and solar.
However, this discussion is only going to be worthwhile if it happens between adults who have the vision and common sense to recognise the real opportunities and ability to make it happen
That sort of counts you out doesn’t it.
Oh, and another thing.
Governments can change the rules governing any part of the country - including national parks.
It just takes a responsible cabinet listening to viable proposals that would go a long way to meeting the peoples needs for the necessary changes to be made allowing it to happen. Just like the new government have done allowing a return to drilling in the Naki. I don’t hear the locals complaining about that one. It was probably why they got so many votes last time.
And, as l point out, you don’t need to go way down to Fiordland or any of the Southern regions to find catchments that are crying out for a controlled development without damaging a single hectare of virgin bush.
There are many perfect examples available all the way down the mountain ranges from East Cape to Wellington.
You could start with quadrupling the size of a number of existing power stations like Tuai at the Lake Waikaremoana outlet.
I have already made it known that my comment above was not intended to be anonymous. Over 60 years I have never made a single public comment to which I can’t be identified, and don’t intend to. I believe that, some cases excepted, with free speech goes the obligation of accountability, which necessitates identification. As for Clive Bibby’s citing the proliferation of damn building opportunities, no response is warranted; it’s pure fantasy.
Nah, just common sense!
Post a Comment